Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7318-H7336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REHABILITATION FOR MULTIEMPLOYER PENSIONS ACT OF 2019

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
509, I call up the bill (H.R. 397) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to create a Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund, to establish a
Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Department of the
Treasury to make loans to multiemployer defined benefit plans, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, in lieu of
the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-24 is adopted, and
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 397

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PENSION REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION; ESTABLISHMENT;
POWERS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of the Treasury an agency to be known as the ``Pension
Rehabilitation Administration''.
(b) Director.--
(1) Establishment of position.--There shall be at the head
of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration a Director, who
shall be appointed by the President.
(2) Term.--
(A) In general.--The term of office of the Director shall
be 5 years.
(B) Service until appointment of successor.--An individual
serving as Director at the expiration of a term may continue
to serve until a successor is appointed.
(3) Powers.--
(A) Appointment of deputy directors, officers, and
employees.--The Director may appoint Deputy Directors,
officers, and employees, including attorneys, in accordance
with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code.
(B) Contracting.--
(i) In general.--The Director may contract for financial
and administrative services (including those related to
budget and accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and
procurement) with the General Services Administration, or
such other Federal agency as the Director determines
appropriate, for which payment shall be made in advance, or
by reimbursement, from funds of the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the
Director and the head of the Federal agency providing the
services.
(ii) Subject to appropriations.--Contract authority under
clause (i) shall be effective for any fiscal year only to the
extent that appropriations are available for that purpose.

SEC. 3. PENSION REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 9512. PENSION REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund' (hereafter in this
section referred to as the `Fund'), consisting of such
amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the Fund as
provided in this section and section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Fund.--
``(1) Amounts attributable to treasury bonds.--There shall
be credited to the Fund the amounts transferred under section
6 of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of
2019.
``(2) Loan interest and principal.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration established under section 2 of
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019
shall deposit in the Fund any amounts received from a plan as
payment of interest or principal on a loan under section 4 of
such Act.
``(B) Interest.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
`interest' includes points and other similar amounts.
``(3) Availability of funds.--Amounts credited to or
deposited in the Fund shall remain available until expended.
``(c) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the Fund are
available without further appropriation to the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration--
``(1) for the purpose of making the loans described in
section 4 of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions
Act of 2019,
``(2) for the payment of principal and interest on
obligations issued under section 6 of such Act, and
``(3) for administrative and operating expenses of such
Administration.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 9512. Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund.''.

SEC. 4. LOAN PROGRAM FOR MULTIEMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.

(a) Loan Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Pension Rehabilitation Administration
established under section 2 is authorized--
(A) to make loans to multiemployer plans (as defined in
section 414(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which
are defined benefit plans (as defined in section 414(j) of
such Code) and which--
(i) are in critical and declining status (within the
meaning of section 432(b)(6) of such Code and section
305(b)(6) of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act)
as of the date of the enactment of this section, or with
respect to which a suspension of benefits has been approved
under section 432(e)(9) of such Code and section 305(e)(9) of
such Act as of such date;
(ii) as of such date of enactment, are in critical status
(within the meaning of section 432(b)(2) of such Code and
section 305(b)(2) of such Act), have a modified funded
percentage of less than 40 percent, and have a ratio of
active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
(iii) are insolvent for purposes of section 418E of such
Code as of such date of enactment, if they became insolvent
after December 16, 2014, and have not been terminated; and
(B) subject to subsection (b), to establish appropriate
terms for such loans.

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the term ``modified
funded percentage'' means the percentage equal to a fraction
the numerator of which is current value of plan assets (as
defined in section 3(26) of such Act) and the denominator of
which is current liabilities (as defined in section
431(c)(6)(D) of such Code and section 304(c)(6)(D) of such
Act).
(2) Consultation.--The Director of the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration shall consult with the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the
Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation before
making any loan under paragraph (1), and shall share with
such persons the application and plan information with
respect to each such loan.
(3) Establishment of loan program.--
(A) In general.--A program to make the loans authorized
under this section shall be established not later than
September 30, 2019, with guidance regarding such program to
be promulgated by the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration, in consultation with the Director of the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, not later than December
31, 2019.
(B) Loans authorized before program date.--Without regard
to whether the program under subparagraph (A) has been
established, a plan may apply for a loan under this section
before either date described in such subparagraph, and the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall approve the
application and make the loan before establishment of the
program if necessary to avoid any suspension of the accrued
benefits of participants.
(b) Loan Terms.--
(1) In general.--The terms of any loan made under
subsection (a) shall state that--
(A) the plan shall make payments of interest on the loan
for a period of 29 years beginning on the date of the loan
(or 19 years in the case of a plan making the election under
subsection (c)(5));
(B) final payment of interest and principal shall be due in
the 30th year after the date of the loan (except as provided
in an election under subsection (c)(5)); and
(C) as a condition of the loan, the plan sponsor stipulates
that--
(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the plan will not
increase benefits, allow any employer participating in the
plan to reduce its contributions, or accept any collective
bargaining agreement which provides for reduced contribution
rates, during the 30-year period described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B);
(ii) in the case of a plan with respect to which a
suspension of benefits has been approved under section
432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section
305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, or under section 418E of such Code, before the loan,
the plan will reinstate the suspended benefits (or will not
carry out any suspension which has been approved but not yet
implemented);
(iii) the plan sponsor will comply with the requirements of
section 6059A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(iv) the plan will continue to pay all premiums due under
section 4007 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974; and

[[Page H7319]]

(v) the plan and plan administrator will meet such other
requirements as the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration provides in the loan terms.

The terms of the loan shall not make reference to whether the
plan is receiving financial assistance under section 4261(d)
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1431(d)) or to any adjustment of the loan amount under
subsection (d)(2)(A)(ii).
(2) Interest rate.--Except as provided in the second
sentence of this paragraph and subsection (c)(5), loans made
under subsection (a) shall have as low an interest rate as is
feasible. Such rate shall be determined by the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration and shall--
(A) not be lower than the rate of interest on 30-year
Treasury securities on the first day of the calendar year in
which the loan is issued, and
(B) not exceed the greater of--
(i) a rate 0.2 percentage points higher than such rate of
interest on such date, or
(ii) the rate necessary to collect revenues sufficient to
administer the program under this section.
(c) Loan Application.--
(1) In general.--In applying for a loan under subsection
(a), the plan sponsor shall--
(A) demonstrate that, except as provided in subparagraph
(C)--
(i) the loan will enable the plan to avoid insolvency for
at least the 30-year period described in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of subsection (b)(1) or, in the case of a plan which
is already insolvent, to emerge from insolvency within and
avoid insolvency for the remainder of such period; and
(ii) the plan is reasonably expected to be able to pay
benefits and the interest on the loan during such period and
to accumulate sufficient funds to repay the principal when
due;
(B) provide the plan's most recently filed Form 5500 as of
the date of application and any other information necessary
to determine the loan amount under subsection (d);
(C) stipulate whether the plan is also applying for
financial assistance under section 4261(d) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431(d)) in
combination with the loan to enable the plan to avoid
insolvency and to pay benefits, or is already receiving such
financial assistance as a result of a previous application;
(D) state in what manner the loan proceeds will be invested
pursuant to subsection (d), the person from whom any annuity
contracts under such subsection will be purchased, and the
person who will be the investment manager for any portfolio
implemented under such subsection; and
(E) include such other information and certifications as
the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration
shall require.
(2) Standard for accepting actuarial and plan sponsor
determinations and demonstrations in the application.--In
evaluating the plan sponsor's application, the Director of
the Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall accept the
determinations and demonstrations in the application unless
the Director, in consultation with the Director of the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, concludes that any such
determinations or demonstrations in the application (or any
underlying assumptions) are unreasonable or are inconsistent
with any rules issued by the Director pursuant to subsection
(g).
(3) Required actions; deemed approval.--The Director of the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall approve or deny
any application under this subsection within 90 days after
the submission of such application. An application shall be
deemed approved unless, within such 90 days, the Director
notifies the plan sponsor of the denial of such application
and the reasons for such denial. Any approval or denial of an
application by the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration shall be treated as a final agency action for
purposes of section 704 of title 5, United States Code. The
Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall make the loan
pursuant to any application promptly after the approval of
such application.
(4) Certain plans required to apply.--The plan sponsor of
any plan with respect to which a suspension of benefits has
been approved under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and section 305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 or under section 418E of such
Code, before the date of the enactment of this Act shall
apply for a loan under this section. The Director of the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall provide for such
plan sponsors to use the simplified application under
subsection (d)(2)(B).
(5) Incentive for early repayment.--The plan sponsor may
elect at the time of the application to repay the loan
principal, along with the remaining interest, at least as
rapidly as equal installments over the 10-year period
beginning with the 21st year after the date of the loan. In
the case of a plan making this election, the interest on the
loan shall be reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
(d) Loan Amount and Use.--
(1) Amount of loan.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and
paragraph (2), the amount of any loan under subsection (a)
shall be, as demonstrated by the plan sponsor on the
application under subsection (c), the amount needed to
purchase annuity contracts or to implement a portfolio
described in paragraph (3)(C) (or a combination of the two)
sufficient to provide benefits of participants and
beneficiaries of the plan in pay status, and terminated
vested benefits, at the time the loan is made.
(B) Plans with suspended benefits.--In the case of a plan
with respect to which a suspension of benefits has been
approved under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and section 305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1085(e)(9)) or under
section 418E of such Code--
(i) the suspension of benefits shall not be taken into
account in applying subparagraph (A); and
(ii) the loan amount shall be the amount sufficient to
provide benefits of participants and beneficiaries of the
plan in pay status and terminated vested benefits at the time
the loan is made, determined without regard to the
suspension, including retroactive payment of benefits which
would otherwise have been payable during the period of the
suspension.
(2) Coordination with pbgc financial assistance.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a plan which is also
applying for financial assistance under section 4261(d) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1431(d))--
(i) the plan sponsor shall submit the loan application and
the application for financial assistance jointly to the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration and the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation with the information necessary to
determine the eligibility for and amount of the loan under
this section and the financial assistance under section
4261(d) of such Act; and
(ii) if such financial assistance is granted, the amount of
the loan under subsection (a) shall not exceed an amount
equal to the excess of--

(I) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) or
(1)(B)(ii) (whichever is applicable); over
(II) the amount of such financial assistance.

(B) Plans already receiving pbgc assistance.--The Director
of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall provide
for a simplified application for the loan under this section
which may be used by an insolvent plan which has not been
terminated and which is already receiving financial
assistance (other than under section 4261(d) of such Act)
from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation at the time of
the application for the loan under this section.
(3) Use of loan funds.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 432(f)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section
305(f)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act, the loan received under
subsection (a) shall only be used to purchase annuity
contracts which meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or
to implement a portfolio described in subparagraph (C) (or a
combination of the two) to provide the benefits described in
paragraph (1).
(B) Annuity contract requirements.--The annuity contracts
purchased under subparagraph (A) shall be issued by an
insurance company which is licensed to do business under the
laws of any State and which is rated A or better by a
nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and
the purchase of such contracts shall meet all applicable
fiduciary standards under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
(C) Portfolio.--
(i) In general.--A portfolio described in this subparagraph
is--

(I) a cash matching portfolio or duration matching
portfolio consisting of investment grade (as rated by a
nationally recognized statistical rating organization) fixed
income investments, including United States dollar-
denominated public or private debt obligations issued or
guaranteed by the United States or a foreign issuer, which
are tradeable in United States currency and are issued at
fixed or zero coupon rates; or
(II) any other portfolio prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury in regulations which has a similar risk profile to
the portfolios described in subclause (I) and is equally
protective of the interests of participants and
beneficiaries.

Once implemented, such a portfolio shall be maintained until
all liabilities to participants and beneficiaries in pay
status, and terminated vested participants, at the time of
the loan are satisfied.
(ii) Fiduciary duty.--Any investment manager of a portfolio
under this subparagraph shall acknowledge in writing that
such person is a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the plan.
(iii) Treatment of participants and beneficiaries.--
Participants and beneficiaries covered by a portfolio under
this subparagraph shall continue to be treated as
participants and beneficiaries of the plan, including for
purposes of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
(D) Accounting.--
(i) In general.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios
implemented under this paragraph shall be used solely to
provide the benefits described in paragraph (1) until all
such benefits have been paid and shall be accounted for
separately from the other assets of the plan.
(ii) Oversight of non-annuity investments.--

(I) In general.--Any portfolio implemented under this
paragraph shall be subject to oversight by the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration, including a mandatory
triennial review of the adequacy of the portfolio to provide
the benefits described in paragraph (1) and approval (to be
provided within a reasonable period of time) of any decision
by the plan sponsor to change the investment manager of the
portfolio.
(II) Remedial action.--If the oversight under subclause (I)
determines an inadequacy, the plan sponsor shall take
remedial action to ensure that the inadequacy will be cured
within 2 years of such determination.

(E) Ombudsperson.--The Participant and Plan Sponsor
Advocate established under section 4004 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 shall act as
ombudsperson for

[[Page H7320]]

participants and beneficiaries on behalf of whom annuity
contracts are purchased or who are covered by a portfolio
under this paragraph.
(e) Collection of Repayment.--Except as provided in
subsection (f), the Pension Rehabilitation Administration
shall make every effort to collect repayment of loans under
this section in accordance with section 3711 of title 31,
United States Code.
(f) Loan Default.--If a plan is unable to make any payment
on a loan under this section when due, the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration shall negotiate with the plan
sponsor revised terms for repayment (including installment
payments over a reasonable period or forgiveness of a portion
of the loan principal), but only to the extent necessary to
avoid insolvency in the subsequent 18 months.
(g) Authority to Issue Rules, etc.--The Director of the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration, in consultation with
the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the
Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, is
authorized to issue rules regarding the form, content, and
process of applications for loans under this section,
actuarial standards and assumptions to be used in making
estimates and projections for purposes of such applications,
and assumptions regarding interest rates, mortality, and
distributions with respect to a portfolio described in
subsection (d)(3)(C).
(h) Report to Congress on Status of Certain Plans With
Loans.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director of the
Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education
and Labor of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions of the Senate, a report identifying any plan that--
(1) has failed to make any scheduled payment on a loan
under this section,
(2) has negotiated revised terms for repayment of such loan
(including any installment payments or forgiveness of a
portion of the loan principal), or
(3) the Director has determined is no longer reasonably
expected to be able to--
(A) pay benefits and the interest on the loan, or
(B) accumulate sufficient funds to repay the principal when
due.

Such report shall include the details of any such failure,
revised terms, or determination, as the case may be.
(i) Coordination With Taxation of Unrelated Business
Income.--Subparagraph (A) of section 514(c)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii)(II)
and inserting ``, or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) indebtedness with respect to a multiemployer plan
under a loan made by the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration pursuant to section 4 of the Rehabilitation
for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.''.

SEC. 5. COORDINATION WITH WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY AND FUNDING
RULES.

(a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section
432 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Special Rules for Plans Receiving Pension
Rehabilitation Loans.--
``(1) Determination of withdrawal liability.--
``(A) In general.--If any employer participating in a plan
at the time the plan receives a loan under section 4(a) of
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019
withdraws from the plan before the end of the 30-year period
beginning on the date of the loan, the withdrawal liability
of such employer shall be determined under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--
``(i) by applying section 4219(c)(1)(D) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as if the plan were
terminating by the withdrawal of every employer from the
plan, and
``(ii) by determining the value of nonforfeitable benefits
under the plan at the time of the deemed termination by using
the interest assumptions prescribed for purposes of section
4044 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as prescribed in the regulations under section 4281 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in the case
of such a mass withdrawal.
``(B) Annuity contracts and investment portfolios purchased
with loan funds.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios
implemented under section 4(d)(3) of the Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 shall not be taken into
account as plan assets in determining the withdrawal
liability of any employer under subparagraph (A), but the
amount equal to the greater of--
``(i) the benefits provided under such contracts or
portfolios to participants and beneficiaries, or
``(ii) the remaining payments due on the loan under section
4(a) of such Act,

shall be taken into account as unfunded vested benefits in
determining such withdrawal liability.
``(2) Coordination with funding requirements.--In the case
of a plan which receives a loan under section 4(a) of the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019--
``(A) annuity contracts purchased and portfolios
implemented under section 4(d)(3) of such Act, and the
benefits provided to participants and beneficiaries under
such contracts or portfolios, shall not be taken into account
in determining minimum required contributions under section
412,
``(B) payments on the interest and principal under the
loan, and any benefits owed in excess of those provided under
such contracts or portfolios, shall be taken into account as
liabilities for purposes of such section, and
``(C) if such a portfolio is projected due to unfavorable
investment or actuarial experience to be unable to fully
satisfy the liabilities which it covers, the amount of the
liabilities projected to be unsatisfied shall be taken into
account as liabilities for purposes of such section.''.
(b) Amendment to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.--Section 305 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1085) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(k) Special Rules for Plans Receiving Pension
Rehabilitation Loans.--
``(1) Determination of withdrawal liability.--
``(A) In general.--If any employer participating in a plan
at the time the plan receives a loan under section 4(a) of
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019
withdraws from the plan before the end of the 30-year period
beginning on the date of the loan, the withdrawal liability
of such employer shall be determined--
``(i) by applying section 4219(c)(1)(D) as if the plan were
terminating by the withdrawal of every employer from the
plan, and
``(ii) by determining the value of nonforfeitable benefits
under the plan at the time of the deemed termination by using
the interest assumptions prescribed for purposes of section
4044, as prescribed in the regulations under section 4281 in
the case of such a mass withdrawal.
``(B) Annuity contracts and investment portfolios purchased
with loan funds.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios
implemented under section 4(d)(3) of the Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 shall not be taken into
account in determining the withdrawal liability of any
employer under subparagraph (A), but the amount equal to the
greater of--
``(i) the benefits provided under such contracts or
portfolios to participants and beneficiaries, or
``(ii) the remaining payments due on the loan under section
4(a) of such Act,

SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF TREASURY BONDS.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time
transfer from the general fund of the Treasury to the Pension
Rehabilitation Trust Fund established under section 9512 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 such amounts as are
necessary to fund the loan program under section 4 of this
Act, including from proceeds from the Secretary's issuance of
obligations under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 7. REPORTS OF PLANS RECEIVING PENSION REHABILITATION
LOANS.

(a) In General.--Subpart E of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 6059A. REPORTS OF PLANS RECEIVING PENSION
REHABILITATION LOANS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a plan receiving a loan
under section 4(a) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act of 2019, with respect to the first plan year
beginning after the date of the loan and each of the 29
succeeding plan years, not later than the 90th day of each
such plan year the plan sponsor shall file with the Secretary
a report (including appropriate documentation and actuarial
certifications from the plan actuary, as required by the
Secretary) that contains--
``(1) the funded percentage (as defined in section
432(j)(2)) as of the first day of such plan year, and the
underlying actuarial value of assets (determined with regard,
and without regard, to annuity contracts purchased and
portfolios implemented with proceeds of such loan) and
liabilities (including any amounts due with respect to such
loan) taken into account in determining such percentage,
``(2) the market value of the assets of the plan
(determined as provided in paragraph (1)) as of the last day
of the plan year preceding such plan year,
``(3) the total value of all contributions made by
employers and employees during the plan year preceding such
plan year,
``(4) the total value of all benefits paid during the plan
year preceding such plan year,
``(5) cash flow projections for such plan year and the 9
succeeding plan years, and the assumptions used in making
such projections,
``(6) funding standard account projections for such plan
year and the 9 succeeding plan years, and the assumptions
relied upon in making such projections,

[[Page H7321]]

``(7) the total value of all investment gains or losses
during the plan year preceding such plan year,
``(8) any significant reduction in the number of active
participants during the plan year preceding such plan year,
and the reason for such reduction,
``(9) a list of employers that withdrew from the plan in
the plan year preceding such plan year, and the resulting
reduction in contributions,
``(10) a list of employers that paid withdrawal liability
to the plan during the plan year preceding such plan year
and, for each employer, a total assessment of the withdrawal
liability paid, the annual payment amount, and the number of
years remaining in the payment schedule with respect to such
withdrawal liability,
``(11) any material changes to benefits, accrual rates, or
contribution rates during the plan year preceding such plan
year, and whether such changes relate to the terms of the
loan,
``(12) details regarding any funding improvement plan or
rehabilitation plan and updates to such plan,
``(13) the number of participants during the plan year
preceding such plan year who are active participants, the
number of participants and beneficiaries in pay status, and
the number of terminated vested participants and
beneficiaries,
``(14) the amount of any financial assistance received
under section 4261 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 to pay benefits during the preceding plan year,
and the total amount of such financial assistance received
for all preceding years,
``(15) the information contained on the most recent annual
funding notice submitted by the plan under section 101(f) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
``(16) the information contained on the most recent annual
return under section 6058 and actuarial report under section
6059 of the plan, and
``(17) copies of the plan document and amendments, other
retirement benefit or ancillary benefit plans relating to the
plan and contribution obligations under such plans, a
breakdown of administrative expenses of the plan, participant
census data and distribution of benefits, the most recent
actuarial valuation report as of the plan year, copies of
collective bargaining agreements, and financial reports, and
such other information as the Secretary, in consultation with
the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration,
may require.
``(b) Electronic Submission.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted electronically.
``(c) Information Sharing.--The Secretary shall share the
information in the report under subsection (a) with the
Secretary of Labor and the Director of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.
``(d) Report to Participants, Beneficiaries, and
Employers.--Each plan sponsor required to file a report under
subsection (a) shall, before the expiration of the time
prescribed for the filing of such report, also provide a
summary (written in a manner so as to be understood by the
average plan participant) of the information in such report
to participants and beneficiaries in the plan and to each
employer with an obligation to contribute to the plan.''.
(b) Penalty.--Subsection (e) of section 6652 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, 6059A (relating to reports of plans
receiving pension rehabilitation loans)'' after ``deferred
compensation)'';
(2) by inserting ``($100 in the case of failures under
section 6059A)'' after ``$25''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a
failure with respect to section 6059A, the amount imposed
under this subsection shall not be paid from the assets of
the plan.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
E of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``Sec. 6059A. Reports of plans receiving pension rehabilitation
loans.''.

SEC. 8. PBGC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan--
``(A) which is in critical and declining status (within the
meaning of section 305(b)(6)) as of the date of the enactment
of this subsection, or with respect to which a suspension of
benefits has been approved under section 305(e)(9) as of such
date;
``(B) which, as of such date of enactment, is in critical
status (within the meaning of section 305(b)(2)), has a
modified funded percentage of less than 40 percent (as
defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019), and has a ratio of
active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
``(C) which is insolvent for purposes of section 418E of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of such date of
enactment, if the plan became insolvent after December 16,
2014, and has not been terminated;

and which is applying for a loan under section 4(a) of the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 may
also apply to the corporation for financial assistance under
this subsection, by jointly submitting such applications in
accordance with section 4(d)(2) of such Act. The application
for financial assistance under this subsection shall
demonstrate, based on projections by the plan actuary, that
after the receipt of the anticipated loan amount under
section 4(a) of such Act, the plan will still become (or
remain) insolvent within the 30-year period beginning on the
date of the loan.
``(2) In reviewing an application under paragraph (1), the
corporation shall review the determinations and
demonstrations submitted with the loan application under
section 4(c) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions
Act of 2019 and provide guidance regarding such
determinations and demonstrations prior to approving any
application for financial assistance under this subsection.
The corporation may deny any application if any such
determinations or demonstrations (or any underlying
assumptions) are unreasonable, or inconsistent with rules
issued by the corporation, and the plan and the corporation
are unable to reach agreement on such determinations or
demonstrations. The corporation shall prescribe any such
rules or guidance not later than December 31, 2019.
``(3)(A) In the case of a plan described in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B), the total financial assistance provided
under this subsection shall be an amount equal to the
smallest portion of the loan amount with respect to the plan
under paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B)(ii) of section 4(d) of the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019
(determined without regard to paragraph (2) thereof) that, if
provided as financial assistance under this subsection
instead of a loan, would allow the plan to avoid the
projected insolvency.
``(B) Such amount shall not exceed the present value of the
maximum guaranteed benefit with respect to all participants
and beneficiaries of the plan under sections 4022A and 4022B.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, the present value of
the maximum guaranteed benefit amount shall be determined by
disregarding any loan available from the Pension
Rehabilitation Administration and shall be determined as if
the plan were insolvent on the date of the application, and
the present value of the maximum guaranteed benefit amount
with respect to such participants and beneficiaries may be
calculated in the aggregate, rather than by reference to the
benefit of each such participant or beneficiary.

``(4) In the case of a plan described in paragraph (1)(C),
the financial assistance provided pursuant to such
application under this subsection shall be the present value
of the amount (determined by the plan actuary and submitted
on the application) that, if such amount were paid by the
corporation in combination with the loan and any other
assistance being provided to the plan by the corporation at
the time of the application, would enable the plan to emerge
from insolvency and avoid any other insolvency projected
under paragraph (1).
``(5)(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if the
corporation determines at the time of approval, or at the
beginning of any plan year beginning thereafter, that the
plan's 5-year expenditure projection (determined without
regard to loan payments described in clause (iii)(III))
exceeds the fair market value of the plan's assets, the
corporation shall (subject to the total amount of financial
assistance approved under this subsection) provide such
assistance in an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(I) the amount by which the plan's 5-year expenditure
projection exceeds such fair market value, or
``(II) the plan's expected expenditures for the plan year.
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `5-year
expenditure projection' means, with respect to any plan for a
plan year, an amount equal to 500 percent of the plan's
expected expenditures for the plan year.
``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term
`expected expenditures' means, with respect to any plan for a
plan year, an amount equal to the sum of--
``(I) expected benefit payments for the plan year,
``(II) expected administrative expense payments for the
plan year, plus
``(III) payments on the loan scheduled during the plan year
pursuant to the terms of the loan under section 4(b) of the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, in the case of
any plan year during which a plan is approved for a loan
under section 4 of such Act, but has not yet received the
proceeds, such proceeds shall be included in determining the
fair market value of the plan's assets for the plan year. The
preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of any plan
that for the plan year beginning in 2015 was certified
pursuant to section 305(b)(3) as being in critical and
declining status, and had more than 300,000 participants.
``(B) The financial assistance under this subsection shall
be provided in a lump sum if the plan sponsor demonstrates in
the application, and the corporation determines, that such a
lump sum payment is necessary for the plan to avoid the
insolvency to which the application relates. In the case of a
plan described in paragraph (1)(C), such lump sum shall be
provided not later than December 31, 2020.
``(6) Subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to financial
assistance under this subsection as if it were provided under
subsection (a), except that the terms for repayment under
subsection (b)(2) shall not require the financial assistance
to be repaid before the date on which the loan under section
4(a) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of
2019 is repaid in full.

[[Page H7322]]

``(7) The corporation may forgo repayment of the financial
assistance provided under this subsection if necessary to
avoid any suspension of the accrued benefits of
participants.''.
(b) Appropriations.--There is appropriated to the Director
of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation such sums as may
be necessary for each fiscal year to provide the financial
assistance described in section 4261(d) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431(d))
(as added by this section) (including necessary
administrative and operating expenses relating to such
assistance).

SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF REQUIRED DISTRIBUTION RULES FOR
DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES.

(a) Modification of Rules Where Employee Dies Before Entire
Distribution.--
(1) In general.--Section 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(H) Special rules for certain defined contribution
plans.--In the case of a defined contribution plan, if an
employee dies before the distribution of the employee's
entire interest--
``(i) In general.--Except in the case of a beneficiary who
is not a designated beneficiary, subparagraph (B)(ii)--

``(I) shall be applied by substituting `10 years' for `5
years', and
``(II) shall apply whether or not distributions of the
employee's interests have begun in accordance with
subparagraph (A).

``(ii) Exception only for eligible designated
beneficiaries.--Subparagraph (B)(iii) shall apply only in the
case of an eligible designated beneficiary.
``(iii) Rules upon death of eligible designated
beneficiary.--If an eligible designated beneficiary dies
before the portion of the employee's interest to which this
subparagraph applies is entirely distributed, the exception
under clause (iii) shall not apply to any beneficiary of such
eligible designated beneficiary and the remainder of such
portion shall be distributed within 10 years after the death
of such eligible designated beneficiary.
``(iv) Application to certain eligible retirement plans.--
For purposes of applying the provisions of this subparagraph
in determining amounts required to be distributed pursuant to
this paragraph, all eligible retirement plans (as defined in
section 402(c)(8)(B), other than a defined benefit plan
described in clause (iv) or (v) thereof or a qualified trust
which is a part of a defined benefit plan) shall be treated
as a defined contribution plan.''.
(2) Definition of eligible designated beneficiary.--Section
401(a)(9)(E) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(E) Definitions and rules relating to designated
beneficiary.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Designated beneficiary.--The term `designated
beneficiary' means any individual designated as a beneficiary
by the employee.
``(ii) Eligible designated beneficiary.--The term `eligible
designated beneficiary' means, with respect to any employee,
any designated beneficiary who is--

``(I) the surviving spouse of the employee,
``(II) subject to clause (iii), a child of the employee who
has not reached majority (within the meaning of subparagraph
(F)),
``(III) disabled (within the meaning of section 72(m)(7)),
``(IV) a chronically ill individual (within the meaning of
section 7702B(c)(2), except that the requirements of
subparagraph (A)(i) thereof shall only be treated as met if
there is a certification that, as of such date, the period of
inability described in such subparagraph with respect to the
individual is an indefinite one which is reasonably expected
to be lengthy in nature), or
``(V) an individual not described in any of the preceding
subclauses who is not more than 10 years younger than the
employee.

``(iii) Special rule for children.--Subject to subparagraph
(F), an individual described in clause (ii)(II) shall cease
to be an eligible designated beneficiary as of the date the
individual reaches majority and any remainder of the portion
of the individual's interest to which subparagraph (H)(ii)
applies shall be distributed within 10 years after such date.
``(iv) Time for determination of eligible designated
beneficiary.--The determination of whether a designated
beneficiary is an eligible designated beneficiary shall be
made as of the date of death of the employee.''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph and
paragraphs (4) and (5), the amendments made by this
subsection shall apply to distributions with respect to
employees who die after December 31, 2019.
(B) Collective bargaining exception.--In the case of a plan
maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective bargaining
agreements between employee representatives and 1 or more
employers ratified before the date of enactment of this Act,
the amendments made by this subsection shall apply to
distributions with respect to employees who die in calendar
years beginning after the earlier of--
(i) the later of--

(I) the date on which the last of such collective
bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof agreed to on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act), or
(II) December 31, 2019, or

(ii) December 31, 2021

.For purposes of clause (i)(I), any plan amendment made
pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the
plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any
requirement added by this section shall not be treated as a
termination of such collective bargaining agreement.
(C) Governmental plans.--In the case of a governmental plan
(as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986), subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
``December 31, 2021'' for ``December 31, 2019''.
(4) Exception for certain existing annuity contracts.--
(A) In general.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall not apply to a qualified annuity which is a binding
annuity contract in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act and at all times thereafter.
(B) Qualified annuity.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term ``qualified annuity'' means, with respect to an
employee, an annuity--
(i) which is a commercial annuity (as defined in section
3405(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986);
(ii) under which the annuity payments are made over the
life of the employee or over the joint lives of such employee
and a designated beneficiary (or over a period not extending
beyond the life expectancy of such employee or the joint life
expectancy of such employee and a designated beneficiary) in
accordance with the regulations described in section
401(a)(9)(A)(ii) of such Code (as in effect before such
amendments) and which meets the other requirements of section
401(a)(9) of such Code (as so in effect) with respect to such
payments; and
(iii) with respect to which--

(I) annuity payments to the employee have begun before the
date of enactment of this Act, and the employee has made an
irrevocable election before such date as to the method and
amount of the annuity payments to the employee or any
designated beneficiaries; or
(II) if subclause (I) does not apply, the employee has made
an irrevocable election before the date of enactment of this
Act as to the method and amount of the annuity payments to
the employee or any designated beneficiaries.

(5) Exception for certain beneficiaries.--
(A) In general.--If an employee dies before the effective
date, then, in applying the amendments made by this
subsection to such employee's designated beneficiary who dies
after such date--
(i) such amendments shall apply to any beneficiary of such
designated beneficiary; and
(ii) the designated beneficiary shall be treated as an
eligible designated beneficiary for purposes of applying
section 401(a)(9)(H)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as in effect after such amendments).
(B) Effective date.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term ``effective date'' means the first day of the first
calendar year to which the amendments made by this subsection
apply to a plan with respect to employees dying on or after
such date.
(b) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
(1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any plan
amendment--
(A) such plan shall be treated as being operated in
accordance with the terms of the plan during the period
described in paragraph (2)(B)(i); and
(B) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury,
such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of section
411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section
204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
by reason of such amendment.
(2) Amendments to which subsection applies.--
(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any
amendment to any plan or which is made--
(i) pursuant to any amendment made by this section or
pursuant to any regulation issued by the Secretary of the
Treasury under this section or such amendments; and
(ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year
beginning after December 31, 2021, or such later date as the
Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.
In the case of a governmental or collectively bargained plan
to which subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (a)(4)
applies, clause (ii) shall be applied by substituting the
date which is 2 years after the date otherwise applied under
such clause.
(B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
amendment unless--
(i) during the period--

(I) beginning on the date the legislative or regulatory
amendment described in paragraph (1)(A) takes effect (or in
the case of a plan amendment not required by such legislative
or regulatory amendment, the effective date specified by the
plan); and
(II) ending on the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii)
(or, if earlier, the date the plan amendment is adopted),

the plan is operated as if such plan amendment were in
effect; and
(ii) such plan amendment applies retroactively for such
period.

SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE.

(a) In General.--The second sentence of section 6651(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Taxpayer
First Act, is amended by striking ``$330'' and inserting
``$435''.

[[Page H7323]]

(b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 6651(j)(1) of such Code,
as amended by such Act, is amended by striking ``$330'' and
inserting ``$435''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to returns the due date for which (including
extensions) is after December 31, 2019.

SEC. 11. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE RETIREMENT
PLAN RETURNS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 6652 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25'' and inserting ``$250''; and
(2) by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(b) Annual Registration Statement and Notification of
Changes.--Subsection (d) of section 6652 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$1'' both places it appears in paragraphs
(1) and (2) and inserting ``$10'';
(2) by striking ``$5,000'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``$50,000''; and
(3) by striking ``$1,000'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``$10,000''.
(c) Failure To Provide Notice.--Subsection (h) of section
6652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$10'' and inserting ``$100''; and
(2) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to returns, statements, and notifications
required to be filed, and notices required to be provided,
after December 31, 2019.

SEC. 12. INCREASE INFORMATION SHARING TO ADMINISTER EXCISE
TAXES.

(a) In General.--Section 6103(o) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Taxes imposed by section 4481.--Returns and return
information with respect to taxes imposed by section 4481
shall be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and
employees of United States Customs and Border Protection of
the Department of Homeland Security whose official duties
require such inspection or disclosure for purposes of
administering such section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (4) of section
6103(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``or (o)(1)(A)'' each place it appears and inserting
``, (o)(1)(A), or (o)(3)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order
to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House Report
116-178, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall
be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

General Leave

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 397, the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Madam Speaker, over the last few decades, construction workers, truck
drivers, industrial bakers, coal miners, and other hardworking
Americans, some of whom are here today, did everything they could to
prepare themselves and their families for a secure retirement. Year
after year, these workers negotiated with their employers to defer
wages in return for a promise of a pension that would allow them to
retire with dignity.
Now, through no fault of their own, the pensions they earned over
their lifetimes and the retirement security they were promised are in
jeopardy. Today, approximately 130 multiemployer pension plans,
covering about 1 million participants, are in severe financial
distress. Several plans are facing insolvency in the next few years,
while many others are projected to fail over the next 20 years.
Making matters worse, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which
insures these pension plans, is projected to run out of money by 2025
as large plans face insolvency. If multiemployer pension plans go broke
and the PBGC's multiemployer program collapses, there will be
catastrophic consequences to retirees, workers, businesses, and
taxpayers.
The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly known as
the Butch Lewis Act, is a bipartisan solution to avert this financial
disaster, and it will actually end up saving taxpayers billions of
dollars.
According to one estimate, a multiemployer pension system collapse
would cost the Federal Government at least $170 billion over 10 years,
and possibly $400 billion over 30 years, due to lost tax revenue and
increased reliance on social programs.
According to the CBO, to solve the problem, this bill is estimated to
cost not $400 billion over 30 years, but $55 billion, total, over those
30 years. This bill will solve the problem. And that is just the cost
to the Federal budget, ignoring the pain and suffering of people losing
their pensions and businesses going out of business.
That is the choice we have today. We can support a bipartisan bill
that saves retirees' hard-earned pensions, protect businesses from
going bankrupt, and costs far less than doing nothing, or we can oppose
it and end up costing the taxpayers far more in the long run.
Madam Speaker, I anticipate that my Republican colleagues will talk
about structural reforms that are needed to prevent multiemployer plans
from facing bankruptcy in the future. I agree.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1
minute.
Madam Speaker, reforms are needed, and I am committed to working on a
bipartisan basis to enact prospective reforms. But when the house is on
fire, you don't debate on how the fire started or pontificate over how
to prevent fires in the future; you put out the fire.
So today we are putting out the fire and protecting retirement
security for more than 1 million Americans across the country and
saving the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said that
we have a house on fire and we must do something about it. What this
bill does is it gives more gasoline to the arsonist who started the
fire.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397, a risky, fiscally
irresponsible, politically motivated scheme that will negatively impact
hardworking Americans and retirees.
Union multiemployer pension plans are currently underfunded by $638
billion, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, which
ensures these pensions, has a $54 billion deficit. In other words,
workers and retirees won't see the benefits they have been promised
because of union and employer negligence.
This problem requires a serious, bipartisan response. That is why,
historically, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together
on this issue. But last month, when the Education and Labor Committee
marked up H.R. 397, committee Republicans were shut out of the debate
and denied the opportunity to offer even a single amendment, a highly
unfortunate and inappropriate decision.
For the first time ever, taxpayers will prop u failing, mismanaged,
union-run pension plans. These plans, all 160 of them, can apply for a
government loan. There is no limit to the loan amount, and, remarkably,
the loans will be completely forgiven if they are unable to be repaid
after 29 years.

The chairman of the Education and Labor Committee said: ``If you
can't pay it back, you can't pay it back.'' So, by the chairman's own
admission, we are giving failed union pensions a blank check. What a
deal.
All the while, H.R. 397 allows plans to continue to promise new
benefits, allowing their liabilities to grow.
While I strongly oppose what H.R. 397 intends to do, I am equally
appalled by

[[Page H7324]]

what the bill fails to do. This legislation fails to include any
reforms that would ensure responsible funding of future benefit
promises or prevent a similar situation from recurring.
The bill also fails to address the chronic underfunding that plagues
the entire union multiemployer system and passively accepts that plan
trustees and actuaries may continue to underestimate pension promises--
to the detriment of workers and retirees. In fact, under H.R. 397, the
situation could become far worse.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now estimates that
H.R. 397 could increase the Federal budget deficit by more than $48
billion. But that estimate is based on last-minute, bogus Democrat pay-
fors and covers only the bill's first 10 years. If we look at the 30-
year scheme created by the bill, we will find a price tag of hundreds
of billions of dollars. And remember, it is American taxpayers who are
on the hook.
Madam Speaker, Congress was set up to be in this position years ago
because Democrats and unions and employers knew that Members and the
public would feel sorry for the union members who were not taken care
of by those they trusted to take care of them. Every Member here should
feel angry about being put in this position. H.R. 397 is a fiscally
irresponsible and careless approach that will cause far more harm than
good.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to
remind the ranking member that CBO estimates that the 30-year cost of
this bill is about $55 billion of money that will not be paid back, or
we can pay up to $400 billion over 30 years. We have a choice. I would
pick the $55 billion.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wilson).
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, as chairwoman of the Education
and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, I
rise today to urge my colleagues to unanimously pass the Butch Lewis
Act of 2019.
Failure to do so will have dire consequences for at least 1.3 million
Americans who did everything right. They put in decades of hard work to
ensure that their retirement years would be secure, so many of them in
physically grueling jobs in mining and construction and on ships and
the Nation's highways.
They often sacrificed wage increases, choosing instead a contribution
to their pension plans so that they could live in their golden years
with dignity and peace, a life well planned. Yet, after all of that,
retired people and future retirees are now living in fear of losing
everything they worked so hard for, and that is a shame.
Failure to pass this legislation also will have dire consequences for
tens of thousands of current workers and regional economies and could
cost American taxpayers between $170 billion and $240 billion.

{time} 1715

There is a huge risk, so we must act now. This is an issue on which
both Democrats and Republicans should agree. This issue has no party,
no race, no religion. We are all in the same boat, and we are running
out of time.
Our failure to take action to protect retirees and American
taxpayers, our constituents, is not an option. It is a necessity, and
we must act now. There is no time to waste. Let's do the right thing
and pass the Butch Lewis Act of 2019 today.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act. It is funny, in this
town, rehabilitation is a word we use to kindly describe a bailout. For
normal people, rehabilitation is a word that would conjure up the idea
that perhaps today we are attempting to fix or improve the $638 billion
pension problem before us.
This bill would, more accurately, be called the bailout for
multiemployer pensions act, because this bill does not contain any of
the needed reforms to change the unsustainable trajectory of these
plans.
What does the bill do instead? It creates a new Federal Government
bureaucracy. It allows for billions of dollars of loans to be just
forgiven. It provides loan terms that actually encourage not paying
down the principal of these loans.
So to be clear, and to make no doubt, we do have to fix this pension
problem, but real progress will only come from a careful, deliberate,
and bipartisan process, and this bill was not designed to be
bipartisan.
In committee, Republicans were actually blocked from offering
amendments that would have improved this bill. So here we are today,
taking up floor time for a one-sided bill that does not fix the problem
and that will not become law.
When the majority wants to make real progress, I will be here, ready
to fix the problem, ready to roll up my sleeves, ready to invest the
bipartisan effort needed to make meaningful reforms. Until then, I will
vote ``no'' on the bailout.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal
for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 397, the Butch Lewis
Act. This is a historic moment for working men and women in this
country, and it has been a long time coming because people have been
working on this for a long time.
Today, we are telling millions of Americans who worked a lifetime for
their pensions that are now in jeopardy, through no fault of their own,
that we are standing with you. We are listening. We are taking action.
For too long, these working men and women have worked in fear, not
knowing what was going to happen. They have given up pay raises. They
played by the rules. They thought they would have a safe and secure
retirement. By passing the Butch Lewis Act, we are sending a loud
message that we hear them and are taking steps to ensure that their
retirement that they worked for, for a lifetime, will be there when
they need it.
This is money hardworking men and women earned and counted on to
retire safely, to afford to stay in their homes, to afford food on
their table, and to afford their medicine. American workers have done
their part. The House will soon do its part.
I hope the Senate will also act quickly because I know the men and
women, they have come to my door at 7 a.m., they have threatened
suicide. They are scared.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in support of this
legislation. One is from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
and one is from UNITE HERE.
International Brotherhood of

Teamsters,

July 18, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The House of Representatives will soon
have the opportunity to ensure that more than a million
retirees and workers who have played by the rules will
receive the pension benefits they have earned through years
of hard work. On behalf of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, its retirees and working families, I ask for a yes
vote on H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act (often referred to as The Butch Lewis Act). As
you know, this legislation is of the highest priority for the
Teamsters Union.
The multiemployer pension system has for many decades been
an essential foundation for providing financial security in
retirement for millions of Americans and their families. Now,
through no fault of their own, the earned pension benefits of
millions of retirees are being threatened due to the
``critical and declining'' (financial) status and the
impending insolvency of a number of multiemployer pension
plans. No doubt you have heard from retirees and families who
live with this uncertainty and whose lives have been turned
upside down. H.R. 397 will ensure that we meet our
obligations to current retirees and workers for years to come
and to do so without retiree benefit cuts. It will strengthen
these plans and provide a path forward for financial
stability and solvency. It will provide improved retirement
security for both workers and retirees. And, it will lessen
the financial pressure on the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation (PBGC) which also faces insolvency.
The bill creates a Pension Rehabilitation Administration
(PRA) which would sell

[[Page H7325]]

Treasury-issued bonds on the open market and then loan money
from the bond sale to these critical and declining
multiemployer pension plans. Plans borrowing from the PRA
must set aside the money in separate investments that match
pension payments for retirees. Retirees and their families
are guaranteed their promised benefits. It will also free up
remaining assets and future contributions to protect the
benefits for active workers.
PRA loans will not be sufficient to help all financially
troubled multiemployer pension plans. Some will need
additional help. For such plans, the bill proposes that the
PBGC provide such help. In doing so, the cost to the Federal
government and the U.S. economy will be far less than
allowing Plans and the PBGC to fail. Unlike the current
federal pension insurance program, H.R. 397 protects benefits
before plan failure.
The financial distress many of these plans face were and
are beyond the control of these retirees and workers.
Multiemployer pension plans have been buffeted by economic
turbulence over the decades--from deregulation to financial
melt downs to recessions.
Pension statutes and legislation are extraordinarily
complex, none more so than multiemployer and Taft-Hartley
pension plans. They are both unique in their structure, and
the challenges they have faced. If these plans fail, it will
not only impact the retirees receiving the benefit, there
will be a broader impact on their communities and the
economy--adverse effects on economic growth and tax losses to
state, local and federal governments.
H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act
provides a mechanism for ``critical and declining''
multiemployer pension plans to address their serious
underfunding problem. It will strengthen these plans and
provide a path forward for financial stability and solvency.
Importantly, the bill does this while avoiding retiree
benefit cuts.
I hope that I can report to our retirees and members in
your district that you stood with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters family to enact this critically
important legislation. Vote to protect retirement benefits.
Vote yes on H.R. 397.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
____

UNITEHERE!,

Las Vegas, NV, July 17, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 300,000 members of
UNITE HERE and their families, we strongly urge your support
for H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multi-Employer Pensions
Act.
At a time when hard working American's are already anxious
about an economy where one job should be enough but often
isn't to make ends meet, we should also be very concerned
about the retirement security of millions of Americans.
H.R. 397, also known as the ``Butch-Lewis Act'', includes a
modest, common sense approach to bringing stability and
reassurance to the retirement pensions of over a million
Americans. Only a small number of multi-employer plans are
facing financial difficulty, but that does not ease the pain
and potential devastation for the millions who honorably
worked hard for themselves and their families. We are talking
about auto workers, truck drivers, iron workers and other
impacted workers who live, work and retire in our
communities.
If we do not offer the means to see those impacted plans
through to solvency, we will all feel the pain of their
distress during their retirement years--a time they have
worked hard to attain.
On behalf of our members, I again urge you to support H.R.
397 and stand up for millions of middle-class Americans who
should be able to retire in dignity.
D. Taylor,
International President.

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal
for their leadership and taking a lot of words and putting it into real
action.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from
Michigan is correct. The union members are not at fault. The union
bosses are at fault, and hardworking, nonunion taxpayers should not be
bailing out the union bosses for their mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
David P. Roe).
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 397 because it is nothing more than a huge step
backwards in our work to save failing multiemployer pensions.
It is the government picking retiree winners and retiree losers. Our
work in Congress, until now, has been bipartisan with both sides
realizing that workers' retirement security is too important of an
issue to play politics with. I and others have been willing to work
across the aisle for a bipartisan solution that works for retirees and
for taxpayers. That offer is still open.
The idea that Congress should bail out union-negotiated pension
plans, but not the retirement plans of millions of other Americans who
have seen their companies go under and had their benefits reduced as a
result, is the most unfair proposal that I have ever seen on the House
floor.
The Democrats are telling hardworking Americans that they should not
only get stiffed in their retirement, but that their taxpayer dollars
should be used to bail out someone else's retirement. To make matters
worse, the bill itself is deeply flawed. It requires no fundamental
changes to pension plans in poor financial shape, and no reforms to
ensure that troubled plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
don't wind up in the same situation.
Again, instead, the bill gives these plans a so-called loan, and then
allows the loan principal to be forgiven if the plan cannot repay the
loan. Simply put, this is not a loan. It is a taxpayer-funded gift. Why
would anybody pay it back? This doesn't have to be partisan.
In 2014, as chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee, I worked with the full committee chair, Chairman Kline,
Ranking Member Miller, and the Obama administration to develop a
bipartisan solution to save these plans. Our plan, the Multiemployer
Pension Reform Act gave plans the tools they needed to avoid insolvency
and continue offering benefits to retirees.
If we passed such a good bipartisan bill, why are we here today?
Unfortunately, the Obama administration made a political decision and
refused to approve an application from the country's largest troubled
plan, Central States. And while many supporters of today's bill cheered
that decision, the Obama administration virtually ensured Central
States retirees will receive far less in their retirement than they
would have or could have, all because the Obama administration
preferred politics over policy.
I still have hope that the Senate will act in a more responsible
manner. The concept of the multiemployer pension plan is a good one and
an idea worth saving, but I would say this to supporters of this bill:
By choosing to act in a largely partisan manner, you are further
jeopardizing retiree benefits.
Literally, every day these plans fail to act, is a step closer to
bankruptcy. Today's action may be the final nail in the coffin for
Central States, whose plan is in such dire straits they cannot wait
another 18 months for a fix.
Outside of Central States, there are many other pension plans in
crisis, but all assuring that the PBGC multiemployer plan will be
insolvent by the end of FY 2025.
We have less than 6 years to solve this problem before retirees
receive pennies on the dollar for what they have earned. I recommend
voting against this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding.
In Oregon and across the country, people have worked hard to provide
themselves and their families with a secure retirement by contributing
a portion of their income to pensions.
But now, through no fault of their own, too many of these hardworking
Americans find that their pension plans are struggling, and without
intervention, these plans will become insolvent, putting the retirement
security of about 1.3 million people at risk.
The bipartisan Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, the
Butch Lewis Act, will help protect retirees, workers, and employers by
creating the Pension Rehabilitation Administration to issue bonds to
finance loans for critical and declining status multiemployer pension
plans. Importantly, this bill does not cut benefits for workers and
retirees, benefits they have earned.
Workers, families, businesses, and retirees are counting on Congress
to address the growing retirement security crisis in our country and
protect the benefits workers have earned over their lifetime. This
bipartisan bill is one important piece of the solution to address the
multiemployer pension crisis, and I urge all of my colleagues to join
me in supporting it.
I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal for their leadership on this
issue.

[[Page H7326]]

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the
people we are trying to help in H.R. 397, and that is one of the
reasons why I feel we need a real solution to this.
Obviously, the pension plans are in such horrible shape that to
continue with the current system and to continue with this bill would
be a very expensive bailout for the taxpayer.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I realize that the taxpayer will
ultimately have to put something in thes plans. And the reason I say
that is the multiemployer pension plan system was set up by Congress in
the 1950s, and my guess is, the way it was set up, it is not surprising
that it will fail. While the Congressmen who are at fault for this have
long since retired and left us, we as a successor Congress, are
supposed to do something.

However, first of all, I don't think this is a sincere proposal. If
it was a sincere proposal, it would have been passed when President
Obama was President, and when the Democratic Party was in total control
around here, about 10 years ago.
We are going to have to, as part of this plan, change things in the
future so we don't begin to run up more debt immediately. We are
probably going to have to have the taxpayer do something to make up for
the damage that has been done in the past, but to pass this bill will
only delay that, in that it is really, quite frankly, just a political
move.
I strongly recommend that we get together, put together a new
committee of four or eight people, and begin to do something. We know
something has got to be done eventually, because not only do we have
these workers hanging out there, but the way this multiemployer pension
plan is set up, a lot of businesses are going to go under too unless
something is done.
But I am saddened today that the bill before us, I don't believe is a
bill that, for all their talking, people really believe is a serious
solution. Because if it was a serious solution, they would have passed
that bill 10 years ago.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Chairman
Neal and Chairman Scott for bringing this bill to the floor, and my
colleague, Debbie Dingell, and Dr. Roe who sat on the supercommittee
last time to address this.
The Butch Lewis Act is a bill that makes sure that those Americans
receive the wages that they earned. This is not a handout. These are
deferred dreams, deferred wages that they said they will put aside
during their active career so that they can live out the American
Dream; those golden years, those pension years. They are deferred
wages.
I know firsthand. Over 3 years ago, my very first speech on the House
floor was right here talking about pensions. For 37 years, I have been
a member of a multiemployer plan, as a rank-and-file worker, and as a
negotiator. I understand how they work.
But the cost of doing nothing to the taxpayers is far greater than
the loans we are giving out now. We bailed out the banks, gave them
billions of dollars, but the people who earn these, who did nothing
wrong, you are saying no to. We cannot screw the people who earned the
wages. It is important for us to pass this because they did nothing
wrong. They played by the rules. That is what we do in America.

{time} 1730

This is not a grand conspiracy. This is about doing the right thing
for the right people, for America.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397. You can
call it, Madam Speaker, whatever you want to call it, but the taxpayers
are going to bail out an underwater multiemployer pension plan. It is
just that simple, based on this legislation.
Since my time in Congress, my colleagues and I on the House Education
and Labor Committee have held numerous hearings on multiemployer
pension plans. I have learned a few things. These plans currently are
underfunded by $638 billion.
How in the world did that happen? The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, PBGC, multiemployer insurance program has a $54 billion
deficit and is expected to become insolvent by the end of fiscal year
2025. According to the PBGC data, 75 percent of multiemployer
participants are in plans that are less than 50 percent funded.
I think we can all agree that the system has failed, and these
retirees, I agree, deserve better.
How were they so misled to believe their contributions would cover
their retirement? In fact, this is just another example of unions
overpromising and underdelivering. The union says, hey, if you pay
this, you are going to get this retirement.
As the owner of a small business, I like to think of myself as coming
to the table, negotiating, and solving the problem. However, both
parties must be willing to find a reasonable solution that works for
everyone.
The Democratic solution on the multiemployer pension program is
shortsighted and partisan. In the business world, we don't call that
problem-solving. We call that another massive taxpayer giveaway.
Taxpayers are not going to stand for this. Not to my surprise, the
Democratic solution is Big Government and billions of dollars in new
costs. Again, this bailout is an unserious policy. It has a zero chance
in the Senate, and I recommend a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much
time is still available on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardenas). The gentleman from Virginia
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has
1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).
Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, the crisis facing multiemployer pensions is
not some faraway event, and it is not about politics or ideology. It is
about people's lives and whether they will be able to retire in dignity
after a lifetime of hard work--American people.
By 2025, the Central States Pension Fund and the PBGC will be
insolvent. That means over a million American employees' and retirees'
earned benefits could disappear if we don't act right now.
This crisis doesn't just affect those enrolled in multiemployer
pension plans. If we don't act, the consequences will be detrimental
for our local businesses, economies, and residents, ultimately
affecting everyone, including millions of American families.
Participants nationwide, including thousands in my district, could
lose everything they have earned if we don't act. These folks who came
to watch the proceedings today never wanted a bailout, as my colleague
across the aisle termed it. They just want and deserve what they have
earned. They deserve it.
We need to pass this bill. We must pass this bill for them and for
our country.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 397. The
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act is nothing more than a
false promise to American workers, retirees, and their families. House
Democrats, instead of working together with us as they have done
historically, moved this bill through committee without one single
hearing or considering one single amendment.
The result? A bill that makes no structural reforms to prevent or
shore up future pension plan insolvencies. In fact, it incentivizes
pension plan managers to offer generous underfunded benefits while
taking risky bets at the cost of the American worker and retiree,
knowing full well they have a forgivable taxpayer-funded loan to fall
back on.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to abandon this bill and instead
work with us so we can achieve forward-looking solutions to protect
workers and prevent future insolvencies.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder
of my time.

[[Page H7327]]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that retirees and workers in
multiemployer union pension plans deserve better than a political
statement disguised as a legislative proposal.
Advancing this highly flawed bill, which has no chance of being
passed in the Senate, will only result in delays rather than solutions
for workers and retirees who are so rightfully concerned about the
state of their pensions.
Mr. Speaker, the individuals in the unions did trust those in charge.
They are not at fault for what has happened, but I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 397, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following five letters in
support: AARP, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, Service Employees International Union, and the
United Steelworkers.

AARP,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of our
nearly 38 million members nationwide and all Americans age 50
and older, AARP is pleased to urge House passage of H.R. 397,
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act. This
bipartisan legislation would help enable eligible
multiemployer pension plans to continue to pay earned
pensions to retirees and fund their long-term pension
commitments.
Over ten million workers, retirees, and their families are
counting on these earned retirement benefits for their
retirement security. As part of the FY 2015 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, with almost no debate, Congress permitted
underfunded multiemployer pension plans to cut the earned
pensions of current retirees. Congress' action broke forty
years of settled pension law and put hundreds of thousands of
retirees at risk of having their retirement benefits and
financial security undermined. Instead of cutting earned
pensions, Congress should instead enact reasonable solutions
to help enable multiemployer pension plans to pay earned
benefits and fully fund their pension plans over time.
We commend the bipartisan group of sponsors on their bill's
proposed creation of a Pension Rehabilitation Administration,
within the Treasury Department, to provide low-cost loans to
qualified underfunded multiemployer pension plans. Plans
would have up to thirty years to pay earned retiree benefits,
prudently invest the loan proceeds, and re-pay the loan.
During the loan period, employers may not reduce
contributions and the plan may not increase promised
benefits. The plan must also demonstrate that receipt of the
loan will enable the plan to avoid insolvency, pay benefits
and loan interest, and accumulate sufficient funds to repay
the loan principal when due.
AARP urges passage of the Rehabilitation of Multiemployer
Pensions Act to protect the hardearned pensions of retirees.
We look forward to working with Congress to enact this
important bill, as well as additional legislation to
adequately fund all earned multiemployer retiree pensions and
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,

Nancy A. LeaMond,

Executive Vice President and
Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.
____

AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2019.
Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO is pleased that the
``Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act'' (H.R. 397)
will be on the House floor this week. We urge you to support
this bill, as it is the first step towards enactment of
legislation to address our nation's looming pension crisis.
Absent federal action, the retirement income security of
over one million American workers, retirees, and their
spouses across the country will be in jeopardy because of the
impending failure of their multiemployer pension plans. By
establishing a federal loan program for troubled plans
meeting certain criteria, H.R. 397 reflects the fact that
allowing these plans to fail will have a devastating impact
not only on individual retirees and their families, but also
on their communities and their employers.
The working men and women whose retirement income security
is at risk have not forgotten the 2008 record-setting federal
rescue of Wall Street. Multiemployer pension plan
participants and retirees are no less worthy than the
financial services firms who were the beneficiaries of the
$700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Moreover, unlike
the Wall Street banks, they played no part in either the
industry deregulation or financial crisis that weakened many
multiemployer pension plans.
Congress has the ability to avert the impending retirement
security crisis if it acts expeditiously. The
``Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act'' is an
important bill because it is the only legislation that, thus
far, offers a solution to that crisis. On behalf of the AFL-
CIO, I urge you to support it.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
____

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers,
July 22, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), I
strongly urge you to vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 397, The
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
Commonly referred to as the ``Butch Lewis Act'', this highly
important and innovative legislation would help save those
multiemployer pension plans which are financially-troubled
while protecting the earned and vested benefits of current
and future retirees.
The multiemployer pension system is on the brink of a real
and disastrous crisis. While the majority of multi employer
pension plans are financially sound, the PBGC estimates that
over 100 multiemployer pension plans, covering more than a
million participants, are in ``critical and declining
status'' and will become insolvent within the next twenty
years. Currently, the only Federal assistance offered to
these troubled plans comes from the PBGC and only after the
plan has already failed. Given the number of plans on the
brink of failure, the PBGC' s multiemployer insurance program
is projected to become insolvent by 2025.
The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019
offers a real, proactive solution which rehabilitates failing
plans, bolsters the PBGC, and protects the earned benefits of
millions of retirees, workers, and their families. This
innovative legislation would allow the Treasury to provide
low-cost loans to qualified underfunded multiemployer pension
plans. Under the legislation, the troubled plans would have
up to thirty years to prudently invest the loaned funds and
would use the investment earnings to pay retiree benefits,
improve the plan's financial position, and pay interest on
the loan to the Treasury. At the end of the thirty year
period, the plan would pay back the loan in full. In order to
be eligible for the loan, the plan would have to demonstrate
that the loan would enable the plan to remain solvent, pay
all retiree benefits and loan interest, and repay the loan
principle when due. During the loan period, contributing
employers would have to maintain their contribution levels
and the plan would not be allowed to make any increases to
retiree benefits.
In the wake of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of
2014, a brutal scheme to steal the pension promises made to
retirees, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act
provides a much needed correction and remedy. This
legislation will work to lift troubled multiemployer plans
out of their financial hole, while maintaining the financial
integrity of the PBGC. Most importantly, the Rehabilitation
for Multiemployer Pensions Act provides a pathway to
accomplishing these venerable goals without stealing from
retirees, workers, and their families.
The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act is the
only solution put forth to date which appropriately and
adequately addresses the multiemployer pension crisis by
providing a lifeline to plans in critical financial status
while maintaining the integrity of healthy multiemployer
plans and the PBGC without cutting the earned benefit
promises made to our nation's retirees and working families.
For these reasons, I urge you to support this vitally
important legislation and vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 397, The
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
Thank you,
Robert Martinez, Jr.,
International President.
____

SEIU,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members
of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I write
to urge you to support H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act. Improving the solvency of
troubled multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (``PBGC'') are the two critical issues
that need to be addressed, and this legislation will
accomplish that without jeopardizing plans that are already
solvent.
SEIU and its Locals sponsor 19 multiemployer pension plans
covering over 800,000 retired and active participants and
their beneficiaries. The health of the multiemployer
retirement community is very important to our union, our
members, and the employers from the health and service
industries which participate in these funds. We support a
resilient multiemployer pension system that provides
continued retirement security to millions of American workers
and their families.
Fortunately, none of SEIU's plans are classified as
``critical and declining.'' Nevertheless we have followed
closely developments in plans that are facing possible
insolvency as we believe that such a development would cause
serious harm to thousands of workers and retirees, to
employers, to the economy and to the multiemployer pension
system as a whole.

[[Page H7328]]

The loan program which the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act would establish should maximize the chances that
troubled plans avoid insolvency. Thousands of workers and
retirees in these plans will be able to avoid devastating
benefit cuts. Also, the legislation would dramatically reduce
the expected liabilities of the PBGC and can save the PBGC's
insurance program for all multiemployer plans.
We thank you for your support for workers and their
retirement security.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, July 24, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.2 million active
and retired members of the United Steelworkers, I urge you to
pass H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions
Act. Otherwise known to most as the ``Butch-Lewis Act''
scheduled for the floor this week. The legislation will
reassert our nation's commitment to millions of retirees in
the multi-employer pension system, and ensure that they
receive the benefits they have earned without needless cuts
to pensioner incomes.
Pensions are one of the most secure forms of long-term
retirement if government, industry and workers operate in a
cooperative manner to ensure long-term sustainability.
Unfortunately, small subsets of plans, battered by federal
deregulation, changing industries, and unfair trade, have
fallen into decline. After a decade of effort by these
pension plans to recover since the Great Recession, the
damage done by inadequate federal policy could cause almost
1.5 million to lose their retirement and impact all of the 10
million participants who are enrolled in multi-employer
pension plans.
Representative Neal's bipartisan legislation is the
guidepost to ensuring millions of retired Americans receive
the benefits they are promised. The legislation will create a
Pension Rehabilitation Administration under the Department of
Treasury and permit the sale of bonds to finance long-term,
low-interest loans to troubled pension plans. By shoring up
critical and declining status pension plans, millions of
retirees will be assured of a continued secure retirement
without forcing cuts to retiree benefits.
During the loan period, employers may not reduce
contributions and the plan may not increase promised
benefits. The plan must demonstrate that receipt of the loan
will enable the plan to avoid insolvency, pay benefits and
loan interest, and accumulate sufficient funds to repay the
loan principal when due. Providing federal oversight and
access to capital, multi-employer pension funds will be able
to manage the long-term commitments to retirees which in turn
will reduce long-term government risk of default at the
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).
For these reasons, I urge you to pass H.R. 397, the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Conway,
International President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the
multiemployer crisis, the most expensive and harmful thing the Congress
can do is nothing. Over the course of 4 years and multiple hearings,
including five hearings of a joint select committee, we have repeatedly
heard the need to address this issue.
We have also heard about process. Let me tell you about the process.
We had 1 year of a select committee--no plan from the Republicans. This
bill was introduced in January--no plan. We had a hearing in March--no
plan. We had a markup in June--no plan or amendment until shortly
before the markup occurred. Then, instead of seriously considering
those amendments, they required us to read the whole bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have a choice to make. Members of Congress can
continue to wring our hands and listen to complaints while the
catastrophe continues to unfold and unnecessarily adds hundreds of
billions of dollars in costs to the Federal budget, or we can act on
this bipartisan solution.
The only bipartisan solution pending in Congress today is the Butch
Lewis Act. This bill addresses the immediate crisis, protects hard-
earned pensions, protects many businesses from bankruptcy, avoids
misery, and saves the taxpayers money.
In fact, according to the CBO, this bill, over 30 years, will cost
less than $60 billion. Doing nothing over 30 years will cost $300
billion to over $400 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the solution. I urge my colleagues to do
the same to ensure that all workers can retire with stability and
dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I ask unanimous consent that he may
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for
Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly referred to as the Butch Lewis
Act.
Contrary to what you have heard, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan
bill. It has Republican sponsors. Peter King is about to speak next. At
different intervals, there have been up to 20 Republicans who have
signed on to this legislation.
This addresses a real problem that, for 2 years, Congress has talked
about and not moved on. For 2 years, we have worked on this. I sat on
the special commission for 2 years. It became a debating society rather
than an opportunity to act on a measured response to a crisis that is
now pending that could be averted by the work that we undertake today.
There are 200 bipartisan sponsors of this legislation in this House.
Ten million Americans participate in multiemployer plans, and about
1.3 million of them are in plans that are quickly running out of money.
And, yes, we have a plan.
These are American workers who planned for their retirement. Now,
after working for 30-plus years, they are facing financial uncertainty
at a time when they are often unable to return to the workforce.
It is worth noting that we have not arrived here because of
malfeasance or corruption. These are forces of the marketplace that
have caused this distortion.
When I heard the gentleman from South Dakota say earlier that this is
a bailout, this is not a bailout. This is a backstop.
Do you know what a bailout is? It is the savings and loan crisis.
That is a bailout.
Do you know what a bailout is? Wall Street. That is a bailout.
Do you know what a bailout is? When Enron made sure that the people
at the top of the corporation kept their money and that the people at
the bottom lost their pensions. That is a bailout.
We are talking about a sensible plan. As I have noted, I have worked
for almost 2 years to build within the Department of the Treasury an
opportunity for a super-administrator to help to nurse these plans back
to good health.
Rita Lewis is in this gallery today, and she is a beneficiary of the
Central States Pension Plan, which is the largest of the underfunded
multiemployer pension plans.
She and Butch Lewis did nothing wrong. They played by the rules,
precisely as we would ask people to do.
So then we hear that this is about union bosses. Then we hear that
this is about malfeasance. This is entirely about people who have been
circumspect in the manner in which they have treated their pension
plans.
She is looking at a significant cut in her pension after years of
hard work and when retirement is finally in sight. Many workers and
retirees have stories very similar to Mrs. Lewis'. These are real
people with a very real problem if Congress doesn't act.
The American people sent us here to address problems like
multiemployer pension plans, and the legislation before us today,
despite what anybody and everybody says, accomplishes that. It would
give millions of workers and retirees like those who have joined Mrs.
Lewis in the gallery today the security and the retirement that they
have worked and planned for in their golden years.
The Butch Lewis Act would allow pension plans to borrow money they
need to remain solvent--borrow, emphasis on ``borrow''--and continue to
provide retirement security for retirees and workers for decades to
come while the plan is nursed back to health.
Let me remind my colleagues: Plans that receive loans under this bill
are subject to numerous requirements and ample oversight. They are not
permitted to increase benefits or to reduce contributions, and loan
proceeds must be invested in conservative investments, grade-A
instruments. This is not a bailout. This is a loan program. It is a
commonsense solution. It is the

[[Page H7329]]

private sector coming together with public-sector opportunities to
address this crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about it when I close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid references to
occupants of the gallery.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 397, which is truly
unfortunate because I know the authors' goals here are very well-
intended.
I have worked as a meatpacker; I have worked as a sheet metal worker;
and I have worked construction. I know how hard these union families
work, both for their wages and for their retirement.
It is why Republicans and Democrats agree we are in a multiemployer
pension crisis. When there are over 1.3 million workers covered by
these union-managed plans whose pensions are set to be drained entirely
over the next decade, that is a crisis. These figures only scratch the
surface. If we are to look at the bigger picture of every union-managed
pension, less than half the promises made by trustees to these union
workers are actually funded--less than half.
To put it simply, there is $638 billion promised to workers'
retirement that is absolutely imaginary. That is wrong.
This bill, I think, doubles down on the worst aspects of the pension
system that have these workers in a pickle today.

{time} 1745

Congress has tried to kick the can down the road before. In 2006,
Congress waived the required contributions for plans that said: We just
can't make the contributions.
And what happened? Things got worse for the workers.
2007, plans were $193 billion underfunded. A couple years ago, it had
tripled. They were three times worse off.
PBGC--they are the Federal insurer of these plans--went from a
deficit of $739 million; their deficit increased seventyfold. That is
even worse for the workers.
So rather than continuing the status quo in today's partisan
exercise--and just be honest. Having nine Republicans does not make
this a bipartisan bill. And we already know, unfortunately, because it
is one party, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Democrats
acknowledge it. Republicans do. Even some of the unions do.
That is why I think a solution needs to happen this year, getting it
to the President's desk so we say: Let's find a bipartisan solution to
offer certainty, stability, and accountability and save these union-
managed plans.
We ought to be working together to ensure that the plans can make
good on their promises to our union workers. This means eliminating the
various gimmicks some of these plans are allowed to use.
Plans have to accurately measure their pension promises in a way
similar to insurance companies making those same promises. For example,
I don't understand: Why are promises to unions worth only one-third of
the pension promises made to workers who are working for a single
company? Aren't union workers just as important, and aren't those
promises just as important for them as other workers?
Equally important, we have folks on accountability. A promise is a
promise, and companies need to be on the hook for every pension promise
they made to their workers. And so, by the way, do the trustees.
Why do we allow the same people to operate the same way and leave the
same union workers behind? What sense does that make?
And, finally, one of the reasons we oppose this bill is we need to
prevent the severely underfunded plans from digging themselves even
deeper in the hole under the guise of protecting workers. We have to
wall off the contributions that fund these new promises that we know
will be broken instead of perpetuating what now is sort of a Ponzi
scheme: Retirees are paid out of the contributions that are supposed to
fund benefits to younger workers. That is double counting, and that is
what gets people in trouble.
I believe our union workers deserve better. The companies in these
plans deserve better.
This bill doesn't make these plans more stable. It doesn't end
underfunding. It doesn't make them secure for the long term. And our
biggest worry as Republicans, it doesn't solve the problem. So these
same workers, years down the road, are going to be in the same problem.
We haven't helped them.
I think our workers deserve better, which is why I strongly urge all
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I give my commitment for the Ways and Means Republicans to work with
you, Mr. Chairman, to find a real solution. Our workers really do
deserve this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King), and I believe he is a Republican demonstrating that
this is a bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding,
and I address this to my Republican and Democratic friends.
I am the lead Republican sponsor of this bill and I am proud to be
because, as far as I am concerned, this bill protects and helps the men
and women that we Republicans claim to care about: hardworking, middle-
income people who play by the rules.
They are not looking for welfare. They are not looking for a free
ride. They have played by the rules. They are the backbone of our
communities.
They are Democrats. They are Republicans. They are Black. They are
White. They are people we rely on all the time. They have done
everything they have been asked to do.
Now, they are not high-paid CEOs. They are not big bankers. They are
ordinary, day-to-day Americans, the people we claim to represent. And
to allow them not to be taken care of, not to be protected, that this
``not be done to me'' just flies in the face of our oath of office.
We have an obligation to these men and women who have done so much
for their country, and there is no example of malfeasance. We are not
talking about that. We are talking about changing economic conditions
that have affected these multiemployer pension plans. That is the
reality. Our economy is moving fast, so there are people getting ahead.
There are also people being left behind.
It is our duty to make sure that everyone gets the opportunity to go
forward, that those who are entering their golden years, who planned,
did everything they had to do, were asked to do, were expected to do,
that they not be left out.
It is easy to look at some actuarial chart and put on the green
eyeshade and say: Well, this may cause this; this may cause that.
In fact, even if we do that, to me, the economic loss by not
protecting these workers is far worse than whatever the cost may be.
And as Congressman Neal said, this is not a bailout. It is a backstop.
It is doing what has to be done.
And, again, they are not high-priced CEOs. They are not looking for a
free ride. They are not trying to get a tax reduction for their jet or
anything like that. They just want to get what they are entitled to,
wha they have earned, and what they played by the rules to get.

So, again, as a Republican, I am proud to stand for this and, also,
for all Republicans in my district who are proud Teamsters, proud union
members, as I was a union member.
Again, we should not be setting class against class, not talking
about union bosses and union corruption. That stuff should have gone
out in the 1930s.
We are all Americans. They are hardworking Americans. They deserve to
receive the protection that we, as Members of the Congress, can give
them.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of this bill.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), one of the key members of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady) for yielding.
I may come to the microphone with a slightly different message,
having been on the bipartisan multiemployer pension commission, having
hundreds of staff-hours into digging into the numbers and desperately
trying to come up

[[Page H7330]]

with an honest, holistic, complete solution.
I fear we are about to do a level of violence here financially that
we don't mean to. A previous Democrat speaker in the previous testimony
actually spoke about we need to do a lifeboat.
If you do the math here, we are not doing a lifeboat. We are putting
a little life preserver out when we need a big lifeboat. And the math--
let's be honest about the math. If we actually come here, and I know
this chart is too small to read, but I brought it up because we have
all seen the actuarial report that makes it very clear.
If we actually use anything even close to what a union worker for a
single employer plan--the protection, the rate of return, the net
present value calculations they get--if we do that to these
multiemployers, the vast majority of the multiemployer plans are in the
red.
And we are, right now, about to fix an offer--whether you want to
call it a bailout, whether you want to call it a subsidy, it is really
expensive, and we are only taking care of a small portion of the
problem.
What are we about to do to all the others, saying: Well, you were
close to the cutoff; you are on your own?
Is that the type of cruelty you are actually about to pass, telling
everyone we took care of the problem when the vast majority of the
workers in these plans are on the other side of the cliff?
I beg of you, come back. We were so close in the commission work, and
it was painful. Everyone was going to be mad at us, and it got a little
too politically difficult.
But there is a mathematical way to get there. And for once, can we
use our calculators to actually solve the problem and be honest rather
than the political rhetoric that is absolutely vacuous on the scale of
this problem.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
Mrs. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Butch Lewis Act.
Passage of this bill is vital to millions of Americans who have
worked hard and played by the rules. That includes tens of thousands of
workers and retirees who live in Florida and hundreds of workers and
retirees who reside in my Orlando area district.
I want to highlight section 4(h) of the bill, which was added at my
request between committee markup and floor consideration. This
provision requires the Pension Rehabilitation Administration to provide
an annual report to Congress on pension plans that have received a loan
under this bill and that are at risk of failing to repay interest or
principal on that loan. Such a failure would require Federal taxpayers
to absorb the cost of the loan.
This provision to increase congressional oversight will maximize the
number of plans that repay their loans and minimize the financial
burden on Federal taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Neal for working with me to
make this important change, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a key member of the Ways and Means Committee,
a businessperson, and who funds retirements and know how hard these
workers work.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Listen, I share the same concerns. I don't think there is anybody I
agree with, probably, on 99 percent of what we talk about than Mr.
Neal; and I have been, for the last couple years, trying to figure out
how to fix this.
If this would actually fix it, that would be great. We look at this
like it is some type of a government program that hasn't been run
right; and Lord knows, there is enough of those out there. This is a
private plan.
We keep talking about union members, and I have to tell you, I live
in a union town. I grew up with union members. I work with people. My
dad was the first Kelly to wear a white shirt to work for crying out
loud.
But the question isn't about union members being irresponsible. It is
about union plans that just didn't function the way they are supposed
to.
If I knew going out of here today and voting for this legislation
would fix the problem, I would do it in a minute. But we know it is not
going to. And then we will have people who will clap and say, yes, they
passed it. Well, we are going in the right direction. And we know it is
not going any further than the floor of the House.
Fixing the plan is paramount. Let's quit figuring out who we are
going to put the blame on and figure out how we are going to fix it.
I am not saying it is anybody's fault on their own. But,
collectively, you have got to look at, if I am a member of a union, I
am saying: So all those things that I won at the bargaining table, all
that compensation I passed up, all those things that I could have asked
for but didn't because I was planning for the future, I found out that
the people who I entrusted my future to weren't capable of running the
program the right way.

The program that we have at my small business is okay. We are going
to be able to meet our obligations. We have got to stop using taxpayer
money to fix irresponsible decisions or actions by people who didn't--
maybe they knew what they were doing; maybe they didn't know what they
were doing. I am not blaming anybody. But the real problem sits on our
doorstep right now today.
And believe me, there is nothing easier than loaning other people's
money to somebody who needs it. I get that. But the truth of the matter
is every single penny we talk about comes out of hardworking American
taxpayers' pockets. They had no role to play in this, and what we are
saying is you are going to have to bail them out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to fix this. I want to
see it fixed, and I want to see everybody in labor feel that all those
generational gains, all of that negotiation actually meant something.
I think it is a shame when they look at, well, why isn't it
functioning the way we were told it was functioning when we signed that
contract? It wasn't their fault. It certainly wasn't the rest of
America's taxpayers. Something failed, probably a lot more than one
instance's worth.
But today, we aren't fixing this. We are putting it across something
that isn't going to get through the Senate, and we are giving people
false hope, which I think is the worst thing we can do. Let's not make
promises we can't keep.
Chairman Neal, I would be glad to work with you any amount of time.
However we have to do it to get this fixed, it has to get fixed.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), and I appreciate his laser-like focus on this issue.
We are hearing people in an alternative universe. The problems that
we are facing financially are not an issue of mismanagement. It is the
near collapse of the economy that plunged it into a downward spiral and
the fact that the deregulation by the Congress in the trucking industry
meant that there were many, many jobs that disappeared. Many plans were
no longer sustainable.
But I find it rich to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle
talk about fiscal conservatism and protecting the taxpayer's money.
These are the folks who passed a tax bill, without the benefit of a
hearing, that added $2.3 trillion to the deficit. And they are ignoring
the fact that, if we allow these plans to go over the edge, it will
cost five, six, eight times as much money.
Let's get real here.
I appreciate the commitment that we have, Mr. Chairman, to a
bipartisan solution. There are people on the other side of the aisle
who want to work on that. This isn't the last word. We have things to
do, but this is, however, the first step to get us there.

[[Page H7331]]

{time} 1800

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), one of the leaders of our Tax Policy Subcommittee
efforts.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I agree we have a serious problem
with multiemployer pensions which needs to be addressed. However, this
bill, I believe, will actually set us back.
It does nothing to address the underlying structural issues of these
plans. It actually does nothing to protect younger workers, who will be
asked to keep paying into a system which remains troubled. And it
saddles taxpayers with liabilities which are unlikely to be paid back,
at a massive cost to taxpayers.
Let me provide just one alarming example of how flawed this proposal
is, which I also highlighted in our committee markup.
Under this legislation, if a pension plan applies for a loan and the
newly created Pension Rehabilitation Administration cannot make a
determination on that plan's ability to repay in order to approve or
deny the loan within 90 days, the loan would be automatically deemed
approved.
Taxpayers deserve timely responses from Treasury, but no reputable
financial institution would rubberstamp loans like this.
Pensioners and taxpayers both deserve better. Let's work together to
deliver a real solution.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge opposition to this bill so that we can,
together, focus on a better solution.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the always erudite Congressman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for years, multiemployer pension plans
offered working-class Americans something almost priceless: a nest egg
for their retirement. This security was provided through collective
bargaining benefit plans. Workers put in their own hard-earned
dollars--they did not fall down on their obligations--for the promise
of a safe and secure retirement.
Workers entered into a contract. You know what a contract is?
Industry deregulation, the decrease in the unionized workforce after
decades of concerted political attacks, and the devastating--the other
side had the House of Representatives for so many years in the last 20
years; they never even introduced a labor bill. What are they talking
about--bipartisan?
This means almost 200 multiemployer plans are projected to fail. Some
of them are going to be in your district, in your district. Plans are
projected to fail, many within the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, 1.3
million are at risk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. At the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of
Multiemployer Pension Plans hearing last year, my constituent Carol
Podesta-Smallen said that her monthly benefits were on the verge of
being cut by 61 percent--read that--from $2,600 to $1,022. Imagine that
loss.
``My biggest fear,'' she told the committee, ``is losing my home''
and ``ending up in a shelter.''
Thanks to the Butch Lewis Act, which creates a unique public-private
partnership, 1.3 million working Americans might not have to fear any
longer.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Estes), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who, as a State
treasurer, has worked with these public pension programs.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397.
Protecting pensions and retirement security for all Americans should
be one area where Republicans and Democrats can agree. It should be a
top priority in Congress.
As the gentleman from Virginia indicated earlier, these plans need
structural reform. Sadly, this bill does not include any.
H.R. 397 falls short of making any meaningful structural reforms to
address the problems of underfunding or provide a method to pay back
the loans. Instead, H.R. 397 provides taxpayer-subsidized loans to
multiemployer pension plans that are insolvent or in danger of becoming
insolvent.
This only throws out more taxpayer dollars while kicking the can down
the road. This is unacceptable. We can and should do better.
However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rushed
this partisan legislation to the House floor with almost zero
Republican feedback or amendments.
Instead of a partisan bill with no chance of going anywhere, I
believe we should work together on serious bipartisan solutions to make
the needed reforms so that we don't get right back in this situation
again.
As Kansas State treasurer, we reformed the public pension system. We
should do that with this system as well.
As Kansas State Treasurer, I helped reform the Kansas public pension
program when it was facing a financial crisis and set it on a path to
being solvent.
In fact, when I was sworn-in as state treasurer, Kansas had the
second worst funded pension in the nation. But thanks to reforms we
enacted, KPERS is now funded at 67% and ranked 29th in the country.
This was a big turnaround and is also the same kind of leadership and
action we need now to preserve and protect pensions across the country.
Pension plans can be reformed even after 2008 stockmarket decline.
Unfortunately, today's bill does nothing to keep pensions solvent in
the future.
American workers and families deserve better and I urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of the Butch Lewis Act, and I do so because we are not talking about
bailing out savings and loans. We are not talking about giving tax
breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent.
We are talking about protecting the benefits of hardworking men and
women who have worked for decades: truck drivers, bakers, grocery
clerks, coal miners, people who have given their all to make sure that
our communities continue to live and thrive.
I commend Chairman Neal and Chairman Scott, the Democratic
leadership, for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge that everybody
vote for it.
Vote for the men and women who have kept America strong.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago this Congress
saved the American economy by extending Federally secured low- or no-
interest loans to the banking and insurance industries and the American
automakers. In many cases, it was the reckless activity of those
industries that caused the economic crisis.
And nothing for hardworking American families.
In 2017, this Congress passed a 14 percent corporate tax cut,
creating a $2 trillion debt, to many of the same industries that almost
destroyed the American economy.
And, again, nothing for America's working families.
Today, more than 200 pension plans covering 1.5 million Americans are
seriously in danger of failing. Working families from Buffalo to Boston
are threatened with their pensions and their retirement savings being
ripped away from them.
Mr. Speaker, the Butch Lewis Act, brought to the floor today under
the leadership of Chairman Richard Neal and Bobby Scott, will provide
stability and retirement security for millions of humble, hardworking
Americans, and I urge its passage.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong
support of the Butch Lewis Act.
This bill would ensure that multiemployer pension plans can continue
to provide security to millions of retired workers, everybody from the
Teamsters to the United Food and Commercial Workers.
This is particularly important for my district in Los Angeles County,
which is home to thousands of actors, musicians, and so many more
creative professionals.
But the American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund
is

[[Page H7332]]

set to run out of money within 20 years, putting their 50,000 members
in danger. In fact, it is tragic that this fund has been put in the
position of applying to the U.S. Treasury for a reduction in benefits,
the benefits that these workers put in a lifetime of hard work to earn.
Instead, the Butch Lewis Act would give pension funds like this loans
for 30 years to help build up their funds, ensuring that workers can
keep the full benefits that they earned and counted on.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Butch Lewis
Act.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Suozzi).
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, every Democrat and every Republican in this
House believes, or at least should believe, that if you are willing to
go to work every single day, you are willing to work 40 or 50 hours a
week, you are willing to work 48 or 50 weeks a year, you should have a
decent life in America.
That is the American Dream: If you work hard, you make enough money
so you can find a place to live, you can educate your children, you can
retire one day without being scared.
And, right now, 1.3 million Americans are scared that they are going
to lose the retirement benefits that they negotiated for.
We have got to work together to try and solve this problem on their
behalf.
Chairman Neal has stated he has been working on this for the past 2
years. People say, ``Oh, we have got to work together. We have got to
work together.''
Let's do it already. This is your opportunity to try and move
together to help hardworking people in America, to save the American
Dream for people that have put the time in, that have done the hard
work, that have negotiated for their benefits.
It is time to protect these people. And it is time to stop saying we
are going to work together; it is time to work together now and pass
the Butch Lewis Act.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly during the course of this
conversation and debate that somehow this is a bailout.
I even heard one speaker reference public pension plans. What has
that got to do with this?
The subject in front of us today is the multiemployer pension plan
system that is under duress through no fault of the individuals who
were supposed to receive the derived benefit on a date certain based
upon the contribution that they made.
Instead, we find ourselves in a position where the argument has
become that somehow this is a bailout of special interests.
This is a backstop of hardworking men and women who have set aside
prescribed numbers of dollars for the purpose of enjoying a period of
time in their lives that they have carefully planned for.
Now, let me draw attention to the following. For 2 years we have
worked on this legislation, and I know there are men and women of
goodwill on both sides who would like to find a solution.
But the truth is, this is the only plan in town. This is the only
plan that has been submitted, formally or informally, after 2 years of
planning and work and an exhaustive 1 year of a special commission that
came up with no solution to the multiemployer pension plan problem.

So, instead, we constructed, through a careful process, an
opportunity where everybody on the Ways and Means Committee was heard.
I have been around long enough to have a special regard for the
minority in a legislative institution. They get to be heard. They get
to offer amendments.
They offered those amendments. Now, I was prepared to accept a couple
of those amendments that I thought were actually pretty good, the
provision being that I attached to that, to accept the amendment, they
would have to vote for the legislation.
So I hope--and despite what we are hearing, by the way, that this
doesn't have a chance in the Senate----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
The idea that we are hearing that this has no chance in the Senate, I
disagree with that. I disagree with that profoundly.
There is an opportunity, once this moves to the Senate, to at least
have something to negotiate with, the Butch Lewis Act.
And I think that there are men and women, again, in the Senate who
are prepared to act on this problem, largely because the contagion from
this plan will eventually make its way and leach into the PBGC.
The head of the PBGC, while not endorsing this specific plan, said to
me: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you are doing what you are doing because
you are going to invite further opportunities to address this problem,
short of, in the end, having to bail out the PBGC, which will happen if
we don't formally address the measure that is in front of us today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Look, it is not enough to do something. We have to do the right
thing. We know the Senate isn't going to consider this bill. They have
told everyone. There is no one in the Senate predicting this bill will
be taken up.
The White House certainly won't support it in its current form. But,
like us, they believe we need to find a solution.
When all is said and done, I know this bill is well intended. I know
the author and leader is well intended because I know him.
I think this will actually delay Congress from making the progress we
really need to on this issue.
So, today, after what will be a largely partisan vote, we are going
to be forced to start over at step one.
I just think union workers and their families, who work incredibly
hard every day, that promises to them ought to be kept. And they demand
better from us.

{time} 1815

To solve this issue, we have to work together to get to the root
cause, which is that there are lower standards and less accountability
for these union-managed plans. That is why the promises to union
workers are worth a third what the promises are to workers in other
plans. That isn't right.
This bill doesn't take any steps to make these failing plans more
stable. It won't end underfunding. It doesn't make them more solvent
over time for their children, who are working, by the way, in these
same companies.
Families of these union workers are counting on these plans, and
these workers have put their trust in these trustees to make good on
their promises. Too many failed, and too many are still failing.
The truth is, we are in this crisis today because not all managers,
by the way, did a bad job, but too many did. They dramatically
overpromised and underdelivered. Will we rely on the same people who
created this mess to do the same thing to the same workers they have
already let down?
It is the workers we worry about the most. I have been on the factory
floors with these men and women. They are good people. They care deeply
about providing for themselves and their families. They just want their
promises kept.
What our union workers need is for Congress to come up with a long-
term, bipartisan solution now. We will need to start over, Republicans
and Democrats working together to develop serious bipartisan reforms.
Again, I pledge to our chairman that Republicans are eager to engage,
if asked, to try to find this solution--for the first time, if we are
asked, to find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to the
bill from Heritage Action for America, Americans for Tax Reform, and
National Taxpayers Union.

Heritage Action for America,

July 23, 2019.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Brady: This week, the House is expected
to consider H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act (previously known as the Butch-Lewis Act). The
bill would essentially bail out over $600 billion in pension
liabilities at taxpayer expense without making any reforms to
ensure future shortfalls will be

[[Page H7333]]

avoided. This bill would also set a dangerous precedent for
other insolvent pensions, including the $6 trillion in
unfunded pension liabilities currently held by state and
local governments.
Politically, this is not an easy issue for many offices.
Every member wants to assure their constituents that he or
she is doing everything possible to protect their retirement
security. But there are four important considerations
representatives should take into account before voting on
this bill: 1) Existing policies have allowed pensions
shortfalls to grow uncontrollably and must be fixed before
any other actions are taken; 2) Private sector workers were
promised their pensions by their employers and their unions,
not by fellow taxpayers or the government; 3) There are
alternative ways to ensure workers receive most or all of
their pensions without a taxpayer bailout if action is taken
quickly; 4) bailouts set dangerous precedents, create moral
hazard, and shield bad actors.
Rather than bailing out multiemployer pensions plans
through costly loans that will never be paid back, lawmakers
should make them solvent by applying some of the tighter
rules that govern single-employer pensions (which were 79%
funded in 2015 vs. 43% for multiemployer), increasing PBGC
premiums, placing reasonable restrictions on growth
assumptions, and giving workers a buyout option.
Allowing taxpayer dollars to flow to private pensions
without even addressing the underlying causes of the
shortfall is an irresponsible non-solution to a growing
national problem. Heritage Action opposes this legislation
and urges all members of Congress to oppose it.
All the best,

Garrett Bess,

Director of Government Relations,
Heritage Action for America.
____

Americans for Tax Reform,

Washington, DC, November 1, 2018.
Re Multiemployer Pension Solvency.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer
Pension Plans. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sherrod Brown,
Co-Chairman, Joint Select Committee on Solvency of
Multiemployer Pension Plans, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Co-Chairmen Hatch and Brown: As the Joint Select
Committee on Multiemployer Pension Solvency considers
proposals to address the multiemployer pension crisis we urge
Congress to enact meaningful reform aimed at preventing the
situation from reoccurring and protecting taxpayers from
future burden. This crisis has created uncertainty for
millions of American workers planning their retirement and we
appreciate the committee's attention to this issue.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) currently
estimates that there are 100 multiemployer pension plans in
danger of insolvency if benefits are not reduced. The
Heritage Foundation assesses that multiemployer pensions hold
roughly $638 billion in unfunded pension promises with only 7
years before plans begin collapsing. Insolvency on this
widespread scale would likely bankrupt the PBGC, itself
underfunded, as it is required by law to insure retirees'
benefits up to $12,870 per year.
While promises were made to participants in multiemployer
plans, they were made by private labor unions, not the
government and certainly not taxpayers. While the enormity of
the problem may make government intervention a political
inevitability, taxpayers have no direct responsibility to
intervene. Any action considered by the committee should
therefore focus on minimizing taxpayers' burden and enacting
serious reform to prevent a future crisis from occurring
again.
Any proposal seeking to provide federal assistance to
multiemployer pensions should include the following reforms:
1. Improved Solvency of the PBGC. The first priority should
be ensuring the PBGC is capable of providing its intended
level of insured benefits to retirees. While the PBGC is not
taxpayer funded, it is still an entity of the government and
has failed to meet its obligations. Efforts at properly
funding the PBGC should focus upon raising standard
multiemployer premiums significantly to increase PBGC
revenues, requiring termination plans for insolvent plans and
introducing a standard PBGC eligibility age for new
individuals receiving PBGC benefits. An underfunded PBGC has
contributed to this crisis and increases the burden placed on
taxpayers, this problem must be addressed.
2. Accrual of new benefits should freeze while switching
employees to 401(k) plans. It is standard practice for
single-employer pension funds to immediately freeze accrual
of new benefits and switch employees to 401(k) plans when
seeking assistance from the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation. Multiemployer pensions must be held to the same
standard. Despite approaching insolvency, multiemployer
pension plans continue to promise benefits several times more
generous than the typical employer contribution to 401(k)s.
Almost two-thirds of contributions made by multiemployer
plans simply cover newly earned benefits, an irrational
amount for plans approaching insolvency and seeking taxpayer
aid. Halting accruals will free up funds to pay current
benefits while new benefits will be more appropriately funded
through both employer and employee contributions.
3. Multiemployer plans must be held to appropriate funding
standards. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for pensions
taking on greater risk. Multiemployer pensions have been
granted special funding rules that allow them to set lower
employer contribution levels and rely on higher returns than
comparative single-employer plans. For example, while single-
employer plans are expected to resume full funding in seven
years, multiemployer employer plans are given thirty years to
payoff unfunded liabilities. Allowing multiemployer plans
this substantially larger time period has allowed the funding
shortage to snowball. As several participating employers went
bankrupt or withdrew over time, the remaining employers were
on the hook for guaranteeing the same investment returns to
participants of these ``orphaned plans.''
4. Beneficiaries should be protected within reason.
Retirees should be granted protection to their benefits, but
that protection must be given within fiscally responsible
limits. 401(k) holders don't receive a bailout if their
account drops, despite plans being funded by the employees
themselves. Retirees under single-employee pensions don't
receive unlimited PCGC protection despite more stringent
funding rules. Beneficiaries of multiemployer plans shouldn't
receive special treatment from the government simply because
their union representatives overpromised on returns. Perhaps
most importantly, having taxpayers fully cover the loss for
retirees will be a signal to employees that their union
representatives successfully advocated to protect them, when
in reality union leadership overpromised and underfunded
their pensions. To avoid a repeat scenario, this situation
must be recognized as a pension crisis, not business as usual
with a taxpayer safety net.
As the Joint Committee continues to consider a potential
solution, Americans for Tax Reform hopes that the committee
will work to lessen the burden on taxpayers and will pursue a
solution that prevents a similar pension crisis from
happening again.
Thank you for your consideration.
Onward,
Grover G. Norquist,
President, Americans for Tax Reform.
____

National Taxpayers Union,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2019.
National Taxpayers Union urges all Representatives to vote
``NO'' on H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act. This legislation would bail out failing private
pension plans with few guardrails for taxpayers and cost at
least $67 billion over the next decade. Congress should
instead pursue legislation that tackles the multiemployer
pension plan (MPP) crisis in a prudent, determined, patient
and gradual way.
NTU has noted before that the MPP crisis, which affects 1.5
million Americans, deserves attention from Congress. However,
H.R. 397 is a flawed piece of legislation. We wrote last
month and in 2018 that, when it comes to MPPs, ``[i]nfusions
of cash from the Treasury with few restrictions tend to
characterize overreaction rather than corrective action.''
Unfortunately, this is exactly what H.R. 397 does, by
providing 30-year loans to failing MPPs with few guardrails
for taxpayer dollars. We believe that H.R. 397 will hurt
workers in the long run, by allowing plan sponsors to double
down on unrealistic promises and assumptions.
H.R. 397 will also exacerbate the troubled state of the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is
scheduled to reach insolvency during fiscal year (FY) 2025.
Portions of PBGC's operations have appeared on the Government
Accountability Office's High Risk List for over a decade, and
H.R. 397 fails to introduce real reforms to PBGC.
Finally, we are alarmed by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) report that pegged the cost of H.R. 397 at more than
$67 billion over the next decade. NTU must add, though, that
even this troubling CBO score fails to account for the 30-
year timeframe on the repayment of loans issued to failing
MPPs. It is reasonable to assume that the 30-year costs to
taxpayers will be at least tens of billions of dollars more,
and even greater if MPPs fail to pay back the full principal
and interest on Treasury Department loans.
We have outlined more prudent reforms before: require PBGC
to more fully embrace risk pricing and other management tools
to safeguard against liability surprises in the future;
include a uniform, significant benefit reduction to show good
faith in, the reform effort; and require that loans be
collateralized with real-world assets that ensure the loans
will be entirely repaid over a term measured in years rather
than decades. We believe any of these reforms would present
far better options to solving the MPP crisis than H.R. 397.
NTU strongly urges Representatives to oppose H.R. 397, and
instead work towards prudent, determined, patient and gradual
solutions to the MPP crisis that avoid putting taxpayers on
the hook for multibillion-dollar bailouts.
Roll call votes on H.R. 397 will be included in our annual
Rating of Congress and a ``no'' vote will be considered the
pro-taxpayer position.
Mr. BRADY. I am convinced we can find a solution. This isn't the
right thing for our workers, but there is a right way to help them. We
are serious about making that happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7334]]

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been edifying. There has been an opportunity
here for a full discussion about this impending problem that threatens
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This is an acknowledgment of
the threat that is before us.
There is one thing that we have in common today. Nobody doubts the
gravity of the situation that is in front of us. Nobody doubts just how
serious this is for financial markets going forward if we don't address
this issue, given the contagion that I referenced earlier that is
likely to occur in other pension plans across the country if we don't
address this issue forthwith.
When I hear people say we want to do this in a spirit of
bipartisanship, when? For 2 years, we talked about this, and finally,
there is a plan that the House is about to vote on in the next few
minutes. I am ever so hopeful and optimistic that we, in fact, are
going to be able to see the opportunity to pass this legislation and
get it over to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
bipartisan bill H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions
Act. This bill would allow pension plans to get back on their feet and
ensure retirees receive their promised benefits.
We must act quickly to ensure that Americans who contributed to their
multiemployer pension plans will not have their financial security at
risk. That is why I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 397. This bill provides
financial assistance to financially troubled multiemployer defined
benefit pension plans covering about 10 million, mostly working-class,
Americans across the country.
The financial assistance provide by the bill consists of loans with a
30-year repayment term. Multiemployer pension plans are collectively
bargained pension plans covering employees with two or more employers.
Retirees, workers and their families, who rely on these plans are
losing benefits earned over a lifetime of work through no fault of
their own.
As an example, the Central States Pension Fund in my district has 10
employers covering more than 1,500 participants. Some of the top
employers using Central States Pension Fund are YRC Inc., ABF Freights
Systems, Penske Truck Leasing Co., DHL Express, and Air Express
International. Without this financial assistance, pensions of truck
drivers, electricians, ironworkers, bakers, and many more would
continue to be cut significantly--putting their families' financial
security and future at risk.
Mr. Speaker, the growing number of families in our country relying on
their pension plans is growing and can no longer go unnoticed. We now
have an opportunity to help these families protect their financial
security.
Mr. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I rise
in support of strong, bipartisan passage of the Butch Lewis Act.
The Butch Lewis Act will provide the economic security this body
ripped out from under millions of hardworking Americans.
Across our country, 1.3 million workers and retirees face serious and
significant threat of cuts to their hard earned multiemployer pension
plans, through no fault of their own. Several of these plans are large
enough to take down the entire Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation,
threatening the guaranteed security of 10 million Americans.
I have heard the message time and again from retirees in my district
and across this nation: they worked for decades to earn these pensions.
Now they are too old, or their health too unstable, to return to the
workforce. The stress and anxiety are sapping their will. Some have
taken their own lives.
The Butch Lewis Act will provide much needed and long-overdue relief.
The Butch Lewis Act keeps the promises made to retirees. It
guarantees pension benefits they have earned into the future. It does
so by allowing troubled pension plans to borrow the money needed to
remain solvent in 30-year, low interest loans. The plan will repay.
Pensions-have afforded millions of middle-class Americans the
opportunity to enjoy their golden years with economic peace of mind.
Let us restore this peace with swift and just passage of the Butch
Lewis Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee

Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amend section 4(b)(2) to read as follows:
(2) Interest rate.--Loans made under subsection (a) shall
have an interest rate of 5 percent for each of the first 5
years and 9 percent thereafter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
One talking point that I have heard a lot from my friends across the
aisle in support of this bill is that Congress has already bailed out
our Nation's financial institutions so we should bail out the pension
plans.
While I don't agree with that sentiment, if that is the argument,
then we should treat these bailouts the same. Using this logic, my
amendment would set the loan interest rates in the bill at 5 percent
for the first 5 years and 9 percent after that, the same rate given to
banks under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
While I wasn't in Congress at the time TARP was passed, the situation
we are in today, considering a union pension bailout, is the best
evidence of why we shouldn't have interfered with a bailout of our
private financial institutions. Nevertheless, that decision was made,
and now one bailout is being used to justify another. If we believe
Congress should be in the business of bailing out privately negotiated,
collectively bargained benefit arrangements of private employers, we
should do so using the same terms as TARP.
A key feature of TARP was the Capital Purchase Program, which
provided capital to finance institutions by purchasing senior preferred
shares. My amendment would set the interest rate of loans authorized
under this bill to the same rate that senior preferred stock dividends
paid under TARP's Capital Purchase Program. If these terms were good
enough for the TARP bailout, they should be good enough for the bailout
offered by this bill.
The majority refuses to accept the outrageous risk associated with
making loans in these plans. Instead, this bill offers low-interest
loans to massively underfunded, failing pension plans and allows loan
principal forgiveness if the plans can't be repaid. This is
unbelievable. This proves the majority has no belief that the loans
will ever be repaid and is simply looking to gift hundreds of billions
of dollars of taxpayer funds to these failing pension plans.
What about the retirement plans affected during the same time? What
are we going to bail out next? Are we going to continue having the
Federal Government come along and throw money at badly managed
investments?
If we do make these loans, the government shouldn't just throw the
money at a problem without some guardrails. With TARP, banks were not
given low-interest loans over 30 years and told it really doesn't
matter if they repay them or not, that we will forgive them anyway. In
fact, those loans were repaid, and the government made money doing
that.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I served as chairman of the Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee for 6 years. I worked on
the bill with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to help solve
this problem. It is a huge problem.
My father was a union member who lost his job 30 years after World
War II, so I have been down that road with my own family.
I am willing to work across the aisle. As Mr. Neal stated, I was on
that committee that didn't do anything. I am willing now to work on
this.
This bill, I disagree with him, is not going anywhere. The PBGC
chairman today said that we should work in a bipartisan way, and I am
sitting here today telling the gentleman that I am willing to do that.
I have been willing to for the past 6 years. We did pass that bill back
about 4 years ago, which will help with the plans, so I am willing to
do that. This plan is not it.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.

[[Page H7335]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garcia of Illinois). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his leadership on behalf of America's working families, and I
thank him for his role in bringing this important legislation to the
floor.
I thank Chairman Neal as well for his chairmanship of the Ways and
Means Committee, so essential in our being able today to come to
respect the work of America's workers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and in opposition
to the amendment. Again, this is about the financial security and
future of America's workers.
Our House Democratic majority was elected to fight for the people.
Today, as we pass the Butch Lewis bill that is bipartisan, that has
bipartisan support, that is exactly what we are doing.
The Butch Lewis Act delivers justice for 1.3 million workers and
retirees facing devastating cuts to pensions earned over a lifetime of
work. It protects the financial security of families, ensuring workers
have the benefits they have earned and need to provide for spouses,
children, and grandchildren. It honors the sacred pension promise in
America, that if you work hard, you deserve the dignity of a secure
retirement.
Sadly, years of relentless special interest agendas have put that
promise in peril. Unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a
financial meltdown that dealt a devastating blow to multiemployer
pension plans while dangerous deregulation and relentless attacks
against unions have eaten away at these plans' health.
If we do not act, the pensions of many workers and retirees will be
cut to the bone, and the financial security and futures of their
families and communities will be thrown into jeopardy.
Workers are the backbone of our Nation, and we cannot accept a single
penny to be cut from their pensions. Congress has a responsibility to
do right by hardworking Americans.

We have a responsibility to Americans like Sam, a retired coal miner
from southwest Virginia who has second-stage black lung and relies on a
$475 a month pension to pay for his healthcare because he has been
denied Federal black lung benefits.
We have a responsibility to Americans like Kenneth from Wisconsin,
who needs his pension to provide for his five children, nine grandkids,
and, until recently, his beloved wife, Beverly, who he just lost to
cancer. Yet, his pension faces a 55 percent cut.
We have a responsibility to Americans like Rita Lewis, who is here
with us today, wife to Butch Lewis, this bill's namesake, who so
heroically fought until his death to protect pensions, including Rita's
survivor benefits.
As Rita testified before Congress: ``This pension was not a gift. He
worked hard for every penny of that pension. He gave up wages and
vacation pay and other benefits . . . so I would be taken care of if
something happened to him.''
Now that pension risks being slashed to the core.
Workers, retirees, and survivors like Sam, Kenneth, and Rita are
forgoing much-needed medicines, or working into their eighties for more
income, and are being robbed of their benefits that they need to help
out their families.
Not Rita. She is not working into her eighties.
We must act now. We will swiftly pass this bill to honor workers'
dignity, support their families, and protect their futures.
We must always remember that the middle class is the backbone of our
democracy, and our workers are the strength of that middle class. In
fact, I do believe that the middle class has a union label on it.
In the coming months, the House will continue to build on this
progress, passing future legislation on behalf of working families. Our
majority is for the people, and we will work relentlessly to restore a
government that works for the people's interest, not the special
interests.
I urge a strong bipartisan vote to protect the pensions of workers
and retirees, and I urge Senator McConnell to immediately take up this
bill so that we can send it to the President's desk and give comfort to
so many families in America.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The intent of
this bill is to keep loan interest rates as low as possible for two
reasons, to get financially distressed plans back on their feet and to
maximize the chance of full repayment of the loan.
CBO estimates that, under the provisions of the bill, the cost of the
loans, after some defaults, will cost less than $60 billion over 30
years, much less than the hundreds of billions of dollars if we do
nothing.
This bill specifies an interest rate to be around the 30-year U.S.
Treasury securities rate with a 20 basis-point increase to cover costs
of administration. For those plans that elect to repay the loan
principal on an accelerated schedule, there is an incentive of a 50
basis-point reduction in the interest rate.
The bottom line here is that this is not a program from which the
Federal Government intends to make a profit.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and many employer
organizations have not endorsed the bill. However, they did send a
letter last year that said: ``The financial and demographic
circumstances of certain plans will not allow them to survive without
responsible financial assistance. Consequently, we recommend long-term,
low-interest loans that will protect taxpayers from financial
liability.''
These business groups recognize that doing nothing is more expensive
to taxpayers than the provisions of this bill and a low-interest loan.

{time} 1830

The amendment before us mandates the interest rate to be 5 percent
for the first 5 years and 9 percent thereafter. This is not a low-
interest loan in today's environment where a 30-year Treasury security
rate is 2.6 percent.
Raising the interest rates to the levels prescribed by my friend from
Tennessee would entirely subvert the loan program. Nobody would apply,
and those who did apply would have to represent an earnings rate that
would not be realistic.
This amendment would increase loan defaults, and its effect, whether
intended or not, would doom the loan program before it starts.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we reject the amendment.
Before I yield back, I want to say that the gentleman from Tennessee
and I disagree on this amendment and the underlying bill, but I
appreciate his leadership and expertise. We served on the Joint Select
Committee last year, and we agree that something needs to be done
because we have a crisis. So I look forward to working with him and his
colleague from Tennessee, the Chair of the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee, Mr. Alexander, as this process moves
forward.
Now, I want to remind everybody, if we do nothing, over a million
hardworking Americans will lose their pensions, businesses will go
bankrupt, and the Federal Government will unnecessarily spend hundreds
of billions of dollars.
This amendment will not help. It will actually make matters worse,
and, therefore, we should defeat the amendment and then pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

[[Page H7336]]

____________________